Ok what's wrong with the article

[SteveSy]

Maybe. In the same breath he implies, but never states, that they are not legal tender, and also implies that they are money.

Money:

1.any circulating medium of exchange, including coins, paper money, and demand deposits.

Ummm that includes numerous things almost all are not FRN's.

But none of them are Libbies.

[yawn]

[notorial dissent]

TOO SNARKY:

Finally, the phrase is "Au contraire ....."

Alas, too true, between my semi-dazed state when I was writing that and my irritatingly inconsistent spell checker, I never know what I am going to end up with any more.

Both 6 and 7 make clear what is, in any event, clear from the "$20" on the coin-- it is designed to make people think they are getting $20 worth of silver, when they are not. That's fraud in my book.

Sorry Steve, the meaning is quite evident and illicit, the intent is to deceive, and possibly to try and avoid being charged with passing counterfeit, fraud anyway anyone sane looks at it.

Well the word "legal" obviously means something created under the law. Libbies were never represented as being created under the law. Nice try though.

No one ever said they did, just that they tried to make them look like legal tender, appearance is all.

They aren't selling something that is not clearly marked with what you will get. As to your second baseless nonsense show where anyone, out of the 2 million liberty dollars issued, made a complaint to the media or authorities claiming they were ripped off, or "conned" by NorFed.

Strange, they are very plainly marked with an amount they do not come close to meeting, so they are not clearly marked, they are falsely and basely marked, if they were worth $20 they would have to contain about 1.3 oz of silver, which they do not, so again a lie. As to 2 million issued, there has yet to be proof of that other than von Nuthouse’s word which is not worth much. As to your last remark, again a lie, as our dear Donny the dog walker and his girlfriend were both arrested on charges for trying to pass Libby’s, so I would say that was a complaint to the authorities, so you were equivocating????

Read the charges Steve, they start off with money laundering, having nothing to do with the coinage.

As to your final inane and lame comment, the strongest thing aside from caffeine I take is either aspirin or the occasional naproxin.

Hmmm so the coins issued by the treasury with $50 or $20 on them that are not worth $20 or $50 isn't fraud?

Since they are spendable as marked they are what they say they are, the fact that they are worth more is due to what they are made of.

Like he said people offer American Express at places that do not accept them under the assumption that they might. what exactly is the difference. Each are backed up by the issuer. You guys are doing you best to make a distinction where there is no difference.

One difference would be that American Express, while not accepted universally, is a credit card of sorts, and is legal. The difference being that if you charge something with Amex, the merchant gets the full amount charged, with the Libby, they get shortchanged an immediate 30% for a false value on the face. Credit cards say what they are from the start and give no false impression, the Libby purports to be one thing when it is something else. That still counts as fraud Stevo.

Here's a real violation of the law. Didn't see the FBI raiding their offices and they advertised on TV claiming they were authorized by the U.S. government.

True, but you note that the State of NY did step in on fraud charges, and it will probably go to a Fed charge on the utterance violation. Since I doubt the Treasury pays someone to sit and read newspapers and watch tv to look for violations, they would depend on either someone bringing it to their attention, or like von Nuthouse, thumbing his nose at them. Not a good idea, as Larken Rose found out. If you are going to commit gross illegalities, it is best to keep a low profile and get out quick. Further, since there is no way to know if there was or was not a Fed investigation going on the argument is pointless other than to agree that they too were violating 18 USC 486 and that you are just trying to find something to justify your indefensible position.

[SteveSy]

Both 6 and 7 make clear what is, in any event, clear from the "$20" on the coin-- it is designed to make people think they are getting $20 worth of silver, when they are not. That's fraud in my book.

Sorry Steve, the meaning is quite evident and illicit, the intent is to deceive, and possibly to try and avoid being charged with passing counterfeit, fraud anyway anyone sane looks at it.

Not its not...your opinion and only that.

Well the word "legal" obviously means something created under the law. Libbies were never represented as being created under the law. Nice try though.

No one ever said they did, just that they tried to make them look like legal tender, appearance is all.

If you say so...but again that's just your opinion.

They aren't selling something that is not clearly marked with what you will get. As to your second baseless nonsense show where anyone, out of the 2 million liberty dollars issued, made a complaint to the media or authorities claiming they were ripped off, or "conned" by NorFed.

Strange, they are very plainly marked with an amount they do not come close to meeting, so they are not clearly marked, they are falsely and basely marked, if they were worth $20 they would have to contain about 1.3 oz of silver, which they do not, so again a lie.

$20 FRN will get you exactly 0$ in silver if you turn them in. They are backed by nothing but good faith.

"Dollar" is a unit of exchange, it's not unique to the U.S. government, I doubt you knew that. The liberty notes clearly say what you will get when you exchange them for silver.

As to 2 million issued, there has yet to be proof of that other than von Nuthouse’s word which is not worth much. As to your last remark, again a lie, as our dear Donny the dog walker and his girlfriend were both arrested on charges for trying to pass Libby’s, so I would say that was a complaint to the authorities, so you were equivocating????

Norfed wasn't arrested...a user was. You going to arrest the manufactures of codine because someone sold or used it illegally?

Read the charges Steve, they start off with money laundering, having nothing to do with the coinage.

I read it and it's one of the most ignorant pieces of work I have seen from the government. It's full of outright fraudulent statements and written by someone either totally ignorant or intentionally lying. It took me all of 30 seconds to show one of his foundational arguments was based on a fabrication, I posted this in the other thread.

Like he said people offer American Express at places that do not accept them under the assumption that they might. what exactly is the difference. Each are backed up by the issuer. You guys are doing you best to make a distinction where there is no difference.

One difference would be that American Express, while not accepted universally, is a credit card of sorts, and is legal. The difference being that if you charge something with Amex, the merchant gets the full amount charged, with the Libby, they get shortchanged an immediate 30% for a false value on the face. Credit cards say what they are from the start and give no false impression, the Libby purports to be one thing when it is something else. That still counts as fraud Stevo.

It purports to be $20 in liberty dollars backed by one fine ounce of silver and nothing more. The rest of your nonsense is just baseless crap. Accepting American Express does not get you the full amount sorry, Amex and all of the credit card companies charge per transaction. There is NO difference, the same thing you claim is illegal about liberty dollars applies to Amex, bank checks and gift cards. You desperately try to make a distinction where there is none. It is also your opinion that they were shortchanged. They could just as easily used them somewhere else and received the full $20 value just as the person using it with them did. Value is based on the acceptance of the person or company receiving them and their ability to purchase. How many times have one of you defended the paper note backed by nothing called the FRN using the same argument? If you're going to use value based on the person's ability to exchange it with the issuer for gold or silver then FRN's are truly worthless. btw, a year 2000 liberty prior to the seizure was worth more in silver than the marked value in FRN's, almost 50% more.

True, but you note that the State of NY did step in on fraud charges, and it will probably go to a Fed charge on the utterance violation. Since I doubt the Treasury pays someone to sit and read newspapers and watch tv to look for violations, they would depend on either someone bringing it to their attention, or like von Nuthouse, thumbing his nose at them. Not a good idea, as Larken Rose found out. If you are going to commit gross illegalities, it is best to keep a low profile and get out quick. Further, since there is no way to know if there was or was not a Fed investigation going on the argument is pointless other than to agree that they too were violating 18 USC 486 and that you are just trying to find something to justify your indefensible position.

I see no warrant issued by the Fed concerning this particular company, and it was far more publicized than liberty dollars. The government is so preoccupied with shutting down an legitimate organization like NorFed they let the true cons run free, it took the State to do the Fed's job. Most people haven't even seen or heard about liberty dollars. Its very obvious the FBI and the treasury are singling out NorFed.

More importantly as Quixote pointed out no one has been charged, only a search and seizure warrant issue for NorFed. At best it "might" be illegal. claiming it was illegal or even implying it is only your opinion and that is all.

The real victims here are the people holding notes that are backed by silver and gold the government stole. Even if NorFed is never charged that silver and gold will remain in the government's custody for years. But then again, the irony is, if they finally do get to exchange them it will be worth probably triple what the note shows equal to FRN's. Further proving the government is nothing but a self legalized thief

[notorial dissent]

Not its not...your opinion and only that.

My opinion true, but an opinion based on familiarity with the law, having been a coin collector for a good number of years, and simple common sense, and apparently shared by both the learned counsel of both the Treasury and the FBI.

$20 FRN will get you exactly 0$ in silver if you turn them in. They are backed by nothing but good faith.

Better than being back by a false amount to begin with, and with my $20 FRN, I can go and buy $20 worth of silver and actually have $20 worth of silver, not $15.

"Dollar" is a unit of exchange, it's not unique to the U.S. government, I doubt you knew that. The liberty notes clearly say what you will get when you exchange them for silver.

Very impressive, would be more impressive if you actually knew where the word came from. Quite true as to the notes, but if you do the math you will still get less than the value of the note, so no bargain there either.

Norfed wasn't arrested...a user was. You going to arrest the manufactures of codine because someone sold or used it illegally?

Did I say Norfed had been arrested, NO, I said Danny the dog walker had been charged with trying to pass them, you asked if there had been a legal complaint, there had been, when the peddler gets caught the police also look at the purveyor-Norfed. If the manufacturer had a hand in the sale, then yes I would go after them as well, and since Norfed provided instructions on using them, they are also guilty of intent.

I read it and it's one of the most ignorant pieces of work I have seen from the government. It's full of outright fraudulent statements and written by someone either totally ignorant or intentionally lying. It took me all of 30 seconds to show one of his foundational arguments was based on a fabrication, I posted this in the other thread.

To quote you, your opinion. You blathered and obfuscated, you have proven nothing except your own preconceived opinion.

It purports to be $20 in liberty dollars backed by one fine ounce of silver and nothing more. The rest of your nonsense is just baseless crap. Accepting American Express does not get you the full amount sorry, Amex and all of the credit card companies charge per transaction. There is NO difference, the same thing you claim is illegal about liberty dollars applies to Amex, bank checks and gift cards. You desperately try to make a distinction where there is none. It is also your opinion that they were shortchanged. They could just as easily used them somewhere else and received the full $20 value just as the person using it with them did. Value is based on the acceptance of the person or company receiving them and their ability to purchase. How many times have one of you defended the paper note backed by nothing called the FRN using the same argument? If you're going to use value based on the person's ability to exchange it with the issuer for gold or silver then FRN's are truly worthless. btw, a year 2000 liberty prior to the seizure was worth more in silver than the marked value in FRN's, almost 50% more.

No Steve, it purports to be worth $20 when it isn’t, and most people have no idea what 1 oz of silver is worth. Quite true that Amex and all other credit card companies charge a per transaction charge, but the merchant gets the entire amount of the sale to begin with, and it is part of the handling agreement. Someone taking a Libby is automatically shortchanged 30% from the start and unless they are aware of the debasement up front are cheated from the start. If the person receiving them knows they are only worth $15 despite being marked $20 that is one thing, but I will bet you they don’t let them out the door with $20 worth of merchandise. You argue apples and oranges, and poorly. Your argument is bogus. With $20 in FRN’s, I can go and buy $20 of silver, with a $20 Libby, I might get $15, if someone would take it. That Steve is the difference.

I see no warrant issued by the Fed concerning this particular company, and it was far more publicized than liberty dollars. The government is so preoccupied with shutting down an legitimate organization like NorFed they let the true cons run free, it took the State to do the Fed's job. Most people haven't even seen or heard about liberty dollars. Its very obvious the FBI and the treasury are singling out NorFed.

Just because they haven’t issued one yet, does not mean they aren’t going to. There is no requirement that they time their actions to suit SteveSy. Liberty has been around a lot longer than the NY lot, and the investigation has probably been going on a great deal longer. Again, they aren’t required to check in with you on their time tables of action or ask your opinion or permission.

More importantly as Quixote pointed out no one has been charged, only a search and seizure warrant issue for NorFed. At best it "might" be illegal. claiming it was illegal or even implying it is only your opinion and that is all.

So! They apparently had enough evidence to convince a grand jury and a judge to get a warrant. They went after the books, which will tell them who is doing what, and from there I would expect arrest warrants to issue. That is usually the pattern in financial cases.

The real victims here are the people holding notes that are backed by silver and gold the government stole. Even if NorFed is never charged that silver and gold will remain in the government's custody for years. But then again, the irony is, if they finally do get to exchange them it will be worth probably triple what the note shows equal to FRN's. Further proving the government is nothing but a self legalized thief

I would suspect that the actual owners of the receipts will be able to put in a claim for their property, providing there is actually enough to do anything with when the inventory is completed. Some of the ones suspected of money laundering may have some explaining to do when it is all said and done, but who knows. There may not be enough gold and silver to cover anything, or the records may be so bad that they can’t figure out what is what, but only time will tell on this.

[SteveSy]

No Steve, it purports to be worth $20 when it isn’t, and most people have no idea what 1 oz of silver is worth. Quite true that Amex and all other credit card companies charge a per transaction charge, but the merchant gets the entire amount of the sale to begin with, and it is part of the handling agreement. Someone taking a Libby is automatically shortchanged 30% from the start and unless they are aware of the debasement up front are cheated from the start. If the person receiving them knows they are only worth $15 despite being marked $20 that is one thing, but I will bet you they don’t let them out the door with $20 worth of merchandise. You argue apples and oranges, and poorly. Your argument is bogus. With $20 in FRN’s, I can go and buy $20 of silver, with a $20 Libby, I might get $15, if someone would take it. That Steve is the difference.

$20 Liberty dollar is worth $20 liberty dollars. The $20 doesn't represent $20 in FRN because it's not an FRN. A $20 liberty dollar is currently title to 1oz of silver. A year 2000 $10 liberty dollar is worth about $15.00 in FRN's or one ounce of silver. Your insistence that its all a scam is nonsense. The notes are valued at their trade value not their exchange value. Just like a FRN is valued at its trade value not its exchange value. The exchange value for an FRN is no gold, no silver. The exchange value for a liberty note is one ounce of silver regardless if it goes to $50 an ounce or $5 an ounce. Considering the free falling dollar you have a very good chance of having your liberty dollars being worth far more in silver than their face value in FRN's, just as it is with the year 2000 liberty dollars.

[BBFlatt]

I found the last statement in the NORFED instructions very illuminating:

Now, give the Liberty Dollar a try. Discover the fun for yourself! Make money, do good, and have fun while protecting our purchasing power - one dollar at a time.

(emphasis added)

Now how is one to make money on a barter transaction, unless one is to pass a libbie for more than it's cost? Why would someone spend hard money when they could pass "worthless" fiat money much more simply? It's clear to me that NORFED is advocating taking advantage of the recipents of the "private currancy" in the transaction. Can you say "inducement to fraud"?

[Demosthenes]

My favorite rationalization of fraud by a libbie hawker so far:

I find it very disappointing that normally rational seeming people still don't understand 'caveat emptor' - that it isn't the seller's duty to ensure that the buyer isn't a moron.

-- Ron Helwig

If the buyer is dumb enough to believe that the value printed on the coin is a lie, who is Ron to educate them, eh?

[SteveSy]

I found the last statement in the NORFED instructions very illuminating:

Now, give the Liberty Dollar a try. Discover the fun for yourself! Make money, do good, and have fun while protecting our purchasing power - one dollar at a time.

(emphasis added)

Now how is one to make money on a barter transaction, unless one is to pass a libbie for more than it's cost? Why would someone spend hard money when they could pass "worthless" fiat money much more simply? It's clear to me that NORFED is advocating taking advantage of the recipients of the "private currancy" in the transaction. Can you say "inducement to fraud"?

And it's not fraud by the Fed when you go to work agree to a rate just to find out several years later that you're earning less because of Fed induced debasement of currency? How much does the Fed buy a $100 FRN for from the Treasury, ah yes $.03? Hmmm, don't they also lend out 9x what they have in reserves so they can make interest on money they haven't really lent not to mention creating money from nothing? How about when the Fed credits the government's account when buying a treasury security but all they do is change digits on the account but give them nothing tangible whatsoever. I wish I could just add some ones and zeros whenever I wanted to buy something.

Just about everything I purchase, especially common goods like milk, bread, butter, gas, electricity, toothpaste etc, is at the minimum 100% more than what it was just 15 years ago because of that fraud. If I had a $10 liberty from 7 years ago, prior to the government's theft of course, I could buy at the minimum 50% more. I think this is where is talking about making money. As the FRN loses value you have the opportunity to exchange your liberty dollars in for silver which is worth more that the face value in FRN's, or if you like exchange them for the new base which is now a $20 liberty.

Besides I don't think you get liberty dollars as a general user cheaper than the equal face value in FRN's. That's only wholesalers.

[Agent Observer]

$20 Liberty dollar is worth $20 liberty dollars. The $20 doesn't represent $20 in FRN because it's not an FRN.

So, um, how many "FRNs" does a $20 Liberty dollar cost to buy? Either way, that’s where the misrepresentation/fraud comes in, and you cant seem to get it through your conspiracy-ladened head. They don’t say "Twenty LIBERTY Dollars." In bold print they simply say "Twenty Dollars" next to a "$20". To the non-conspiracy minded, and/or "the-ebil-gubermint-is-out-to-get-me" crowd, 20 ($ symbol) dollars means 20 "FRNs." If I decide to carve pieces of glass in the shape of a gemstone, call them "diamonds," and try to pass them off, people are going to assume that they are genuine diamond gemstones, regardless of what I try to "back them up with" via a description on a website (which is generally not accessible during person to person interactions where money is exchanged anyway). It works the same way in a drug case if a dealer sells baking powder, which he purports to be cocaine, to an undercover officer. He will be charged and convicted for narcotics trafficking as if it were the real thing, even though it's not.

The website also expends a fair amount of effort stating the liberty dollars are a form of currency, as noted by other posts to this thread, and a succinct statement from the site itself:

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/informa ... dollar.htm

8. OWNERSHIP: As the custom die is used in the production of a financial instrument and counterfeiting is to be avoided...

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

$20 Liberty dollar is worth $20 liberty dollars. The $20 doesn't represent $20 in FRN because it's not an FRN. A $20 liberty dollar is currently title to 1oz of silver. A year 2000 $10 liberty dollar is worth about $15.00 in FRN's or one ounce of silver. Your insistence that its all a scam is nonsense.

Ahh but the scam lies in the misrepresentation.

First off it represents itself as real money. Not funny Liberty money but REAL money.

6. Now the hardest part - don't say anything! Just wait. Let the person marvel at its beauty, weight, and discover it says TWENTY DOLLARS. When asked "Is it real?" Answer: "Yes, one ounce of silver PRIVATE currency valued at 20 dollars." Do not rush. Just stand there and wait, patiently. No need to smile. Just wait.

They are telling people to instruct others the content of silver is equal to $20USD and giving specific instructions on how to defraud the buyer into believing that this has 20 dollars worth of silver.

[SteveSy]

The website also expends a fair amount of effort stating the liberty dollars are a form of currency, as noted by other posts to this thread, and a succinct statement from the site itself:

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/informa ... dollar.htm

8. OWNERSHIP: As the custom die is used in the production of a financial instrument and counterfeiting is to be avoided...

Wow....gee wiz Wally you really got something there. Hurry go run to the FBI and show them what you got right away.

They are telling people to instruct others the content of silver is equal to $20USD and giving specific instructions on how to defraud the buyer into believing that this has 20 dollars worth of silver.

Heh, ya, sure they do.

btw, you pay more in FRN's than there is in gold content for minted treasury gold coins too. A one ounce coin minted by the Treasury costs 831.95 , Gold is currently at about 803.00.

[Agent Observer]

Agent Observer wrote:
The website also expends a fair amount of effort stating the liberty dollars are a form of currency, as noted by other posts to this thread, and a succinct statement from the site itself:

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/informa ... dollar.htm

Quote:
8. OWNERSHIP: As the custom die is used in the production of a financial instrument and counterfeiting is to be avoided...

Wow....gee wiz Wally you really got something there. Hurry go run to the FBI and show them what you got right away.

Naw, I work my own cases. The FEEBs like to cherry pick easy stats. At any rate, you totally ignored the meat of what I said and instead picked out something that was related to the financial portion of the earlier discussion.

It's cool though. That's your MO: Ignore reality and focus on some ridiculous side argument to try to confuse the issue.

This thread, like everything you attempt here, ended in you being shut down at every turn. Rather than refute reality, you prefer to throw dirt in the water to confuse the issue and avoid addressing the issues that clearly demonstrate you are wrong (again). For example, you try to compare the actions of the US Treasury and real money to to a group of con men and their funny money in order to justify their actions. Next you'll say that the CEO of Wal Mart should have the ability to declare war since Congress has that ability.

Congratulations on making a logical leap only capable on Planet Stevesy; population one.

[SteveSy]

Agent Observer wrote:
The website also expends a fair amount of effort stating the liberty dollars are a form of currency, as noted by other posts to this thread, and a succinct statement from the site itself:

http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/informa ... dollar.htm

Quote:
8. OWNERSHIP: As the custom die is used in the production of a financial instrument and counterfeiting is to be avoided...

Wow....gee wiz Wally you really got something there. Hurry go run to the FBI and show them what you got right away.

Naw, I work my own cases. The FEEBs like to cherry pick easy stats. At any rate, you totally ignored the meat of what I said and instead picked out something that was related to the financial portion of the earlier discussion.

It's cool though. That's your MO: Ignore reality and focus on some ridiculous side argument to try to confuse the issue.

This thread, like everything you attempt here, ended in you being shut down at every turn. Rather than refute reality, you prefer to throw dirt in the water to confuse the issue and avoid addressing the issues that clearly demonstrate you are wrong (again). For example, you try to compare the actions of the US Treasury and real money to to a group of con men and their funny money in order to justify their actions. Next you'll say that the CEO of Wal Mart should have the ability to declare war since Congress has that ability.

Congratulations on making a logical leap only capable on Planet Stevesy; population one.

Oh ok, I'm the only one that thinks this way...hmmm seems this thread was started by an article where the writer is thinking like I am. It's really to bad you can't use your usual tactic on him though and defame him. I'm sure before it's all over one of you will post where one of his kids got a speeding ticket or something or worse where he was sent to dentition in school!

Bottom line is that you, as always, insist your fantasy is reality as do most people here.

We have discussed the law as it relates to NorFed's coins, please explain how the certificates (notes) violate any currency law? Please identify the law you think was violated. Please don't offer a bunch of nonsense of how it's a con blah, blah, blah, the warrant makes no legal claim against the notes as far as I can tell. Assuming the notes were not included in the violation of the laws noted in the warrant under what authority does the government have to seize the silver and gold that backed those notes and the notes themselves from their inventory?

As an aside, where in the constitution is congress granted the sole authority to make something "legal tender"? I haven't found that yet. I suppose the argument can be made that the government has no constitutional authority to make liberty dollars, or any other currency, illegal to begin with.

[The Observer]

Bottom line is that you, as always, insist your fantasy is reality as do most people here.

It has to be a pretty strong "fantasy" that it always and consistently results in the TP "reality" being trumped at every turn. If I have to rely on the results of the last 100 years of TP "reality" versus our "fantasy", then I will be siding with the side that has the winning record.

[SteveSy]

Bottom line is that you, as always, insist your fantasy is reality as do most people here.

It has to be a pretty strong "fantasy" that it always and consistently results in the TP "reality" being trumped at every turn. If I have to rely on the results of the last 100 years of TP "reality" versus our "fantasy", then I will be siding with the side that has the winning record.

I don't think the writer of the article is a TP. btw, no one has trumped me at every turn. Every single rebuttal to my opinions are merely opinions themselves. None of you have any superior or inside information to suggest you know for a fact anything you said is fact or what will definitely happen in this particular case. No one has even been charged of a crime little alone convicted of one. It's simply a fantasy concocted by you, mostly the result of a severe case megalomania and narcissism I suspect.

[The Observer]

Bottom line is that you, as always, insist your fantasy is reality as do most people here.

It has to be a pretty strong "fantasy" that it always and consistently results in the TP "reality" being trumped at every turn. If I have to rely on the results of the last 100 years of TP "reality" versus our "fantasy", then I will be siding with the side that has the winning record.

I don't think the writer of the article is a TP. btw, no one has trumped me at every turn. Every single rebuttal to my opinions are merely opinions themselves. None of you have any superior or inside information to suggest you know for a fact anything you said is fact or what will definitely happen in this particular case. No one has even been charged of a crime little alone convicted of one. It's simply a fantasy concocted by you, mostly the result of a severe case megalomania and narcissism I suspect.

Really? How many other losing causes of TPs have you backed over the years here based on what they (and you) believed was the correct interpretation of what the law really said about the paying of taxes? It is just impossible for me to be impressed about any claims you can make regarding your understanding how this Norfed case is going to turn out, especially when I recall your defense of Larken Rose, Irwin Schiff, i.e., how they hadn't violated any laws, and how juries disagreed with you.

Steve, for what it is worth, most federal investigations don't usually go to the efforts of raiding and seizing evidence if they didn't think that they had a legitimate case in the first place. For one reason, they have to get a US attorney to agree that there is a case worth taking in and prosecuting before a federal judge - raiding for "effect" is not a healthy way to endear the Justice Department to your side.

Does that mean the feds never screw up? Of course not. Wserra and others here could probably regale us with anecdotes for the next couple of months of the clients they represented who were the victims of federal bumbling or zealousness. But that is the rule rather than the exception. The conviction rate for a federal crime is very high and if the federales have a person in their sights, they probably are going to nail them - only because of the high requirements imposed by the Constitution, Congress and court rulings to ensure that the accused got their fair day in court.

Just because no one has been charged yet in the Libby case doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen in the future either - the other side of the coin that you keep ignoring in your continual protestations.

[jg]

As an aside, where in the constitution is congress granted the sole authority to make something "legal tender"? I haven't found that yet. I suppose the argument can be made that the government has no constitutional authority to make liberty dollars, or any other currency, illegal to begin with.

You suppose incorrectly.
See LEGAL TENDER CASES, 79 U.S. 457 (1870) at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... &invol=457

Mr. Justice BRADLEY, concurring: ...
The United States is not only a government, but it is a National government, and the only government in this country that has the character of nationality. It is invested with power over all the foreign relations of the country, war, peace, and negotiations and intercourse with other nations; all which are forbidden to the State governments. It has jurisdiction over all those general subjects of legislation and sovereignty which affect the interests of the whole people equally and alike, and which require uniformity of regulations and laws, such as the coinage, weights and measures, bankruptcies, the postal system, patent and copyright laws, the public lands, and interstate commerce; all which subjects are expressly or impliedly prohibited to the State governments. It has power to suppress insurrections, as well as to repel invasions, and to organize, arm, discipline, and call into service the militia of the whole country. The President [79 U.S. 457, 556] is charged with the duty and invested with the power to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. The judiciary has jurisdiction to decide controversies between the States, and between their respective citizens, as well as questions of National concern; and the government is clothed with power to guarantee to every State a republican form of government, and to protect each of them against invasion and domestic violence. For the purpose of carrying into effect and executing these and the other powers conferred, and of providing for the common defence and general welfare, Congress is further invested with the taxing power in all its forms, except that of laying duties on exports, with the power to borrow money on the National credit, to punish crimes against the laws of the United States and of nations, to constitute courts, and to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the various powers vested in the government or any department or officer thereof.

Such being the character of the General government, it seems to be a self-evident propositi on that it is invested with all those inherent and implied powers which, at the time of adopting the Constitution, were generally considered to belong to every government as such, and as being essential to the exercise of its functions. If this proposition be not true, it certainly is true that the government of the United States has express authority, in the clause last quoted, to make all such laws ( usually regarded as inherent and implied) as may be necessary and proper for carrying on the government as constituted, and vindication its authority and existence.

Another proposition equally clear is, that at the time the Constitution was adopted, it was, and had for a long time been, the practice of most, if not all, civilized governments, to employ the public credit as a means of anticipating the national revenues for the purpose of enabling them to exer cise their governmental functions, and to meet the various exigencies to which all nations are subject; and that the mode of employing the public credit was various in different countries, and at different periods-sometimes by the agency [79 U.S. 457, 557] of a national bank, sometimes by the issue of exchequer bills or bills of credit, and sometimes by pledges of the public domain. In this country, the habit had preva led from the commencement of the eighteenth century, of issuing bills of credit; and the revolution of independence had just been achieved, in great degree, by the means of similar bills issued by the Continental Congress. These bills were generally made a legal tender for the payment of all debts public and private, until, by the influence of English merchants at home, Parliament prohibited the issue of bills with that quality. This prohibition was first exercised in 1751, against the New England colonies; and subsequently, in 1763, against all the colonies. It was one of the causes of discontent which finally culminated in the Revolution. Dr. Franklin endeavored to obtain a repeal of the prohibitory acts, but only succeeded in obtaining from Parliament, in 1773, an act authorizing the colonies to make their bills receivable for taxes and debts due to the colony that issued them. At the breaking out of the war, the Continental Congress commenced the issue of bills of credit, and the war was carried on without other resources for three or four years. It may be said with truth, that we owe our national independence to the use of this fiscal agency. Dr. Franklin, in a letter to a friend, dated from Paris, in April, 1779, after deploring the depreciation which the Continental currency had undergone, said: 'The only consolation under the evil is, that the public debt is proportionately diminished by the depreciation; and this by a kind of imperceptible tax, every one having paid a part of it in the fall of value that took place between the receiving and paying such sums as passed through his hands.' He adds: 'This effect of paper currency is not understood this side the water. And indeed the whole is a mystery even to the politicians, how we have been able to continue a war four years without money, and how we could pay with paper, that had no previously fixed fund appropriated specially to redeem it. This currency, as we manage it, is a wonderful machine. It performs its office when we issue it; it pays and clothes troops, and provides [79 U.S. 457, 558] victuals and ammunition.'101 In a subsequent letter, of 9th October, 1780, he says: 'They [the Congress] issued an immense quantity of paper bills, to pay, clothe, arm, and feed their troops, and fit out ships; and with this paper, without taxes for the first three years, they fought and battled one of the most powerful nations of Europe.'102 The Continental bills were not made legal tenders at first, but in January, 1777, the Congress passed resolutions declaring that they ought to pass current in all payments, and be deemed in value equal to the same nominal sums in Spanish dollars, and that any one refusing so to receive them ought to be deemed an enemy to the liberties of the United States; and recommending to the legislatures of the several States to pass laws to that effect.103

Massachusetts and other colonies, on the breaking out of the war, disregarde the prohibition of Parliament, and again conferred upon their bills the quality of legal tender.104

These precedents are cited without reference to the policy or impolicy of the several measures in the particular cases; that is always a question for the legislative discretion. They establish the historical fact that when the Constitution was adopted, the employment of bills of credit was deemed a legitimate means of meeting the exigencies of a regularly constituted government, and that the affixing to them of the quality of a legal tender was regarded as entirely discretionary with the legislature. Such a quality was a mere incident that might or might not be annexed. The Continental Congress not being a regular government, and not having the power to make laws for the regulation of private transactions, referred the matter to the State legislatures. The framers of the Constitution were familiar with all this histo y. They were familiar with the governments which had thus exercised the prerogative of issuing bills having the quality, and intended for the purposes referred to. They had first drawn their breath under these governments; they [79 U.S. 457, 559] had helped to administer them. They had seen the important uses to which these securities might be applied.

In view, therefore, of all these facts when we find them establishing the present government, with all the powers before rehearsed, giving to it, amongst other things, the sole control of the money of the country and expressly prohibiting the States from issuing bills of credit and from making anything but gold and silver a legal tender, and imposing no such restriction upon the General government, how can we resist the conclusion that they intended to leave to it that power unimpaired, in case the future exigencies of the nation should require its exercise?

I am aware that according to the report of Mr. Madison in the original draft of the Constitution, the clause relating to the borrowing of money read, 'to borrow money and emit bills on the credit of the United States,' and that the words, 'and emit bills,' were, after some debate, struck out. But they were struck out with diverse views of members, some deeming them useless and others deeming them hurtful. The result was that they chose to adopt the Constitution as it now stands, without any words either of grant or restriction of power, and it is our duty to construe the instrument by its words, in the light of history, of the general nature of government, and the incidents of sovereignty.

The same argument was employed against the creation of a United States bank. A power to create corporations was proposed in the Convention and rejected. The power was proposed with a limited application to cases where the public good might require them and the authority of a single State might be incompetent. It was still rejected. It was then confined to the building of canals, but without effect. It was argued that such a power was unnecessary and might be dangerous. Yet Congress has not only chartered two United States banks, whose constitutionality has been sustained by this court, but several other institutions. As a means appropriate and conducive to the end of carrying into effect the other powers of the government, such as that of borrowing money with promptness and dispatch, and [79 U.S. 457, 560] facilitating the fiscal operations of the government, it was deemed within the power of Congress to create such an institution under the general power given to pass all such laws as might be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the other powers granted. The views of particular members or the course of proceedings in the Convention cannot control the fair meaning and general scope of the Constitution as it was finally framed and now stands. It is a finished document, complete in itself, and to be interpreted in the light of history and of the circumstances of the period in which it was framed.

No one doubts at the present day nor has ever seriously doubted that the power of the government to emit bills exists. It has been exercised by the government without question for a large portion of its history. This being conceded, the incidental power of giving such bills the quality of legal tender follows almost as a matter of course. ...

[SteveSy]

I appreciate the case jg, I didn't think congress had the power defined in the constitution. It had to be one manufactured by the court.

Wow so it all comes from "necessary and proper". I don't see and can't see why it is "necessary and proper" for the government to make legal tender laws in order to accomplish the named powers especially in light of the fact that "'and emit bills,' were, after some debate, struck out". Seems a little absurd to me to put that power back in by fiat considering there is the 10th amendment and then claim its "necessary and proper" to give the power to congress and to make those bills legal tender, but ok. Doesn't "some deeming them useless and others deeming them hurtful" mean at the very minimum the creators didn't find "emit bills" "necessary and proper"? Poke one little hole in the constitution and look at all the crap that comes flowing out.

btw, it also seems to me that someone claiming FRN's represent debt is proper considering the above case. Anyway, back to our regularly scheduled topic...

[Imalawman]

Steve - The Gov't can't do that under constitution!

Quatloosian - Here's a SCOTUS case that says they can.

Steve - Ah, another bogus court case, ruling by corrupted fiat. See, I knew there was no basis in the constitution.


I think Steve would be happier with just two branches of Government - well, one really: Steve Sy, dictator and supreme ruler. Seriously, the contempt he has for the court system is stunning.

[The Observer]

SteveSy, perhaps this will help.

My bet is that it won't help Steve. Nothing else over the last 6 years has helped him understand why he is wrong.