Von Nuthouse raid (Continued)

[SteveSy]

SteveSy wrote:

No one that I know of and certainly no web page has tried to pass Norfed's coins off as "current money" meaning it's accepted by the government as legitimate money.

I see you haven't read the "How to use the Liberty Dollar" section on libertydollar.org.

. "Do the Drop!" The best way to introduce the Liberty Dollar is to drop the Silver Liberty in someone's hand. Do not hand it to the cashier, Drop it! Hold a one-ounce Silver Liberty a couple inches above the outreached palm and drop it so it lands flat in the person's palm.

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.

7. After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too [show the cashier FRN cash], but would prefer to pay with silver." If the cashier hands it back immediately, you may ask her to show the currency to the manager, or just pay some other way.

Notice that they suggest you not tell any part of the truth about the LD unless directly asked. Then be sure to represent its value as deceptively as possible. Don't say "I like to think it's worth $20," but rather that it's "valued at $20."

I especially like the 30 seconds part. As if the clerk is going to mull it over for 30 seconds before accepting or rejecting the funny money.

What a retard....it specifically says multiple times to state its private money and not government issued money. At most its saying let someone marvel at its beauty before you let them know its not government issued money. Man you guys are grasping for straws.


Look these have 20 Dollars written on them too, as do most a lot of gift cards.



And guess what when you receive a rebate from cingular which is supposed to be in U.S. dollars you get a visa giftcard instead to be used as "money".

[agent86x]

And guess what when you receive a rebate from cingular which is supposed to be in U.S. dollars you get a visa giftcard instead to be used as "money".

But not as currency which is what Nuthouse claims his liberty dollars were.

But what exactly is a check, Steviepoo? It's accepted as "money" isn't it?

[The Observer]

Please explain why the part in red makes a difference according to the law.

You are focusing on the wrong part, and deliberately so. The part you keep ignoring is "alternate currency." This is what Nuthaus was promoting. Please find me an instance where any issuer of a debit card has said to use their card as an alternate currency. In addition please demonstrate any instance where the consumer of such a card would have to accept the possibility that the value of the debit card could decrease based on commodity speculation.

As far as the "prior agreement" they simply advertise wherever the gift card is accepted. Liberty dollars can be used wherever liberty dollars are accepted.

Unlike debit card issuers who guarantee that the card can be used at their stores. If Nuthaus had specified only that Liberty dollars could be redeemed for product in his business then he wouldn't be running up against charges of violating 18 USC 486. It would have been clearly understood he was providing a vehicle for his customer's ease and benefit in shpping at his business.

No one that I know of how complained about it. Nothaus can no more be held liable for the acts of one person than can Mastercard be held liable for someone stealing a Mastercard and using it in an illegal fashion. So out of about 20 million in these liberty dollars you can produce two instances of someone misusing them who are not affiliated with Norfed? Oh boy you really have a good argument there. :roll

:

Except you are ignoring that Nuthaus encouraged the incident through his advertising and implying that this was legal currency. Mastercard doesn't do that - they actually pay vendors.

I knew all along the government would shut them down, not because its illegal, bogus or a rip off but because I know how our government operates.

But you didn't warn Nuthaus? Wow, you really are selfish, letting him put himself out on a limb and not even give a decent guy a clue about the feds coming after him.

[The Observer]

The dollar is dropping like a rock and the Fed is simply insuring it will have a monopoly no matter what happens. It doesn't want anyone to have an opportunity to escape its control.

Really? How many other precious commodity businesses have been raided by the government in the last week?

There's only one type of note like the Liberty dollar that I know of, you know of any others?

I know of a lot of precious metal dealers who sell these commodities as an investment tool for individuals. And people buy them, wisely or not, as the case may be, on the basis that they can later exchange them for a better value in the future. Yet the government seems in no way concerned that FRNS are being exchanged for gold, silver, platinum, etc. and that these people are getting rid of their FRNs. And you know fully well that far more than $20 million is invested in these commodities. So why is the government only concerned with Nuthaus when there are simply far more people out there thumbing their nose at the government with their gold pieces?

[The Observer]

Look these have 20 Dollars written on them too, as do most a lot of gift cards.

A gift card that has FRNs behind it and that do not imply that you somehow have to convince another vendor or merchant to accept them. They are usable at the vendor who issued them. Please explain how that is anything like what Nuthaus was promising.

And guess what when you receive a rebate from cingular which is supposed to be in U.S. dollars you get a visa giftcard instead to be used as "money".

And again, that credit was established between Visa and Cingular as an agreement, meaning that everyone is in the loop and the consumer doesn't have to take on the responsibility of convincing someone that the Visa card has value. Why didn't Nuthaus issue Visa cards instead of Liberty dollars? And why do you keep trying to compare apples to oranges?

[notorial dissent]

[quote=''Nothouse"] "We never refer to the American Liberty as a coin," von NotHaus told The Spokesman-Review in 1999. "The word 'coin' is a government-controlled term. This is currency that is free from government control."

And it is the word “currency” that gets him into trouble. Only the government may issue currency.


Nothing in the constitution forbids someone from making medallions or items that are marked with a dollar figure. If so we better rip all those gift cards off of Best Buy's and Walmart's racks. They too have a dollar figure attached used to buy stuff with.
Again a deliberate twisting of words and facts. When you make a medallion that looks like a genuine US coin, and put a $ sign and an amount on it, it constitutes an attempt at a false coin and is a violation.

The Liberty Dollar and other precious-metal mintings distributed by NORFED, Inc., dba the Liberty Dollar, never have claimed to be, do not claim to be, are not, and do not purport to be, legal tender, or a coin.

An outright lie, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, an ourtight violation.

The noun currency has many dictionary definitions - for example, without limitation, "that which is current as a medium of exchange[,]" "circulation as a medium of exchange[,]" "a common article for bartering[.]" In the sense that currency may be used to refer to the coinage of a government the Liberty Dollar never has claimed to be, does not claim to be, is not, and does not purport to be, currency.
An outright lie, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, an ourtight violation.

The noun money also has many dictionary definitions - for example, again without limitation, "something generally accepted as a medium of exchange[,]" "a measure of value[,]" "a means of payment[.]" In the sense that money may be used to refer to the coinage of a government the Liberty Dollar never has claimed to be, does not claim to be, is not, and does not purport to be, money.
An outright lie, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, an outright violation.

Further since the terms have been spelled out in the statute you have been previously given your argument is as usual pointless.


September 19, 2006

- http://www.libertydollar.org/ld/faqs/disclaimer.htm

No one from Norfed attempted to pass their items off as government money. They never tried to claim their items are legal tender so that people would accept them for payment. All exchanges were completely voluntary. No one was forced to accept these items. What is wrong with letting people barter? If you don't like the trade don't accept the damn things, no one tried to trick you into accepting these things. Don't go off and try and vilify the people involved and engage in legitimizing the seizure of property simply because you are so intolerant of another's opinions.
If not an outright lie, a deliberate misrepresentation, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, and being able to use them like currency. The violation is in the appearance and the intent, an outright violation.

The government is engaged in fraud, they have created a lie in order to get a warrant. Anyone can plainly see Norfed has NEVER claimed the amount denominated on the notes would be exchangeable for an amount equal to the market price of precious metals. The notes clearly state otherwise right on them.
And neither does the warrant, but nice try at misdirection.

I find it sickening people such as those on this board are so intolerant of another's opinion that they're willing to accept shutting down legitimate businesses and seizing citizens property simply because they do not like what they stand for.
If that were the case, you might have a point, but as usual you are just flat out wrong.

These are advertised on TV

They're are purposely intended to look just like government issued coins. Why aren't they being shut down?

Well for a start, if you had bothered to look, you would not see anything that alludes to a value on the “proof”. The requisite $ and amount are spectacularly missing. I find myself in the position of almost agreeing with you here, but the “proof” does not meet all the requisite requirements to cross the statute, incidently, here is what a real $20 St Gaudens looks like and there are significant differences, like a very obvious dollar value.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the Constitution give the Congress sole right to mint and control money, that is sole and absolute, there is no wiggle room there Stevie. Along with that right comes the power to regulate and enforce that right by law. As has all been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

Steve, a gift card, is nothing more than a credit receipt or voucher in plastic form, issued by a merchant. Try though you may like you cannot twist that into issuing currency. Credit vouchers are a long established fact. Nice try though. No Stevie, gift cards are not advertised as currency, they are advertised as gift cards, and just because you are losing the argument, you cannot make them something they are not.

Famspear, please don’t use the terms “reasoning” and “SteveSy” in the same sentence, there is only so much coffee one can inhale in one day.

Famspear, all of Steve’s BS and whining aside, the issue comes down to intent and appearance, and in my opinion, based upon the law in question, that in looking at the coins, there is no question but that they are made in the image and appearance of genuine coins, and thus come under the statute. The “warehouse receipts” are shakier, but still look more like currency than they do like any receipt I have ever seen, so again, they fall to the statute. Appearance condemns them, and von Nutcases own websites show him to be a liar as to intent, whether he actually believes that nonsense or not, he was using it to sell to his suckers, so again, he runs into the statute. I really don’t think a jury will have much trouble seeing the actuality of it all. I think it is they money laundering fraud charges that will put him away though.

[SteveSy]

Look these have 20 Dollars written on them too, as do most a lot of gift cards.

A gift card that has FRNs behind it and that do not imply that you somehow have to convince another vendor or merchant to accept them. They are usable at the vendor who issued them. Please explain how that is anything like what Nuthaus was promising.

There's no more FRN's behind Gift cards then there is FRN's behind liberty dollars, they're merchants holding a credit to the holder. They control how much you will or not receive by controlling that credit.

And guess what when you receive a rebate from cingular which is supposed to be in U.S. dollars you get a visa giftcard instead to be used as "money".

And again, that credit was established between Visa and Cingular as an agreement, meaning that everyone is in the loop and the consumer doesn't have to take on the responsibility of convincing someone that the Visa card has value. Why didn't Nuthaus issue Visa cards instead of Liberty dollars? And why do you keep trying to compare apples to oranges?

But the receiver is getting this card without a prior agreement. I never said "I'll take a Visa card instead of my rebate in cash." I was forced to accept an alternative method of money. Not even Nothaus is forcing people to accept these for payments.

You act as if people were forced to take these notes or they were not voluntarily accepted and used. You have one example of someone who tried to misuse the notes, something Nothaus had nothing to do with out of what 20 million dollars worth? It would be like me showing an example of someone trying to use a mastercard where they didn't accept mastercard.....your arguments are just lame.

What he's doing is no different than exchanging gift cards for trade. They represent title to the amount of silver or gold denoted on the note. That amount, from what I see, was never denied to anyone who asked for it.

[SteveSy]

Here is the web site SteveSy the Disingenuous got the photo from:

http://www.asseenontv.com/prod-pages/go ... _coin.html

Now that's laughable.....I never claimed it was anything other than a replica pretending to be a real coin. Damn you guys are really being pathetic. The photo and the company represent exactly what I was trying to say. No tricks or slight of hand....the only disingenuous act is by you pretending I was being disingenuous. I feel like I'm discussing something with spoiled children instead of adults.

Go to the web site and notice that the coin has no amount on it, is electroplated in gold, is a replica collectors item of another historic coin and is in the Gifts/Novelty section of the site. I think I noted this on another thread where SteveSy tried the same weak, pathetic argument.

The site noted above makes no claim that the item is money or can be used at various shops.

Right, and liberty dollars never claimed to be real treasury dollars either....they're privately minted notes and medallions. At least liberty dollars are not pretending in any way shape or form to be real treasury money while the "replica's" are and they are somehow legal.

[SteveSy]

[quote=''Nothouse"] "We never refer to the American Liberty as a coin," von NotHaus told The Spokesman-Review in 1999. "The word 'coin' is a government-controlled term. This is currency that is free from government control."

And it is the word “currency” that gets him into trouble. Only the government may issue currency.

What does "currency" mean?


Currency:
1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.
2. Transmission from person to person as a medium of exchange; circulation: coins now in currency.
3. General acceptance or use; prevalence: the currency of a slang term.
4. The state of being current; up-to-dateness: Can you check the currency of this address?


Well that fits a lot of stuff like, gift cards, checks, money orders, casino chips and the list goes on and on.....

Nothing in the constitution forbids someone from making medallions or items that are marked with a dollar figure. If so we better rip all those gift cards off of Best Buy's and Walmart's racks. They too have a dollar figure attached used to buy stuff with.
Again a deliberate twisting of words and facts. When you make a medallion that looks like a genuine US coin, and put a $ sign and an amount on it, it constitutes an attempt at a false coin and is a violation.

No it doesn't. If so many medallions would also be illegal including the replicas. Liberty dollars never pretended to be treasury dollars. In fact they were intended to be the exact opposite and advertised as such.

The law doesn't say anything like that. You're just speaking from your rear end. Considering this post I seriously doubt you've even read the law.

The Liberty Dollar and other precious-metal mintings distributed by NORFED, Inc., dba the Liberty Dollar, never have claimed to be, do not claim to be, are not, and do not purport to be, legal tender, or a coin.

An outright lie, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, an ourtight violation.

Man you're just being a fool.....

Currency and money are not the same as "legal tender" or "coin" in the sense of the law.

The noun currency has many dictionary definitions - for example, without limitation, "that which is current as a medium of exchange[,]" "circulation as a medium of exchange[,]" "a common article for bartering[.]" In the sense that currency may be used to refer to the coinage of a government the Liberty Dollar never has claimed to be, does not claim to be, is not, and does not purport to be, currency.
An outright lie, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, an ourtight violation.

No its not....this is apparently way above your head.

No one from Norfed attempted to pass their items off as government money. They never tried to claim their items are legal tender so that people would accept them for payment. All exchanges were completely voluntary. No one was forced to accept these items. What is wrong with letting people barter? If you don't like the trade don't accept the damn things, no one tried to trick you into accepting these things. Don't go off and try and vilify the people involved and engage in legitimizing the seizure of property simply because you are so intolerant of another's opinions.
If not an outright lie, a deliberate misrepresentation, as his website repeatedly refers to them as currency and money, and being able to use them like currency. The violation is in the appearance and the intent, an outright violation.

You can use many things like money or currency including gift cards, game tokens, casino chips, checks etc. none of which is illegal.

The government is engaged in fraud, they have created a lie in order to get a warrant. Anyone can plainly see Norfed has NEVER claimed the amount denominated on the notes would be exchangeable for an amount equal to the market price of precious metals. The notes clearly state otherwise right on them.
And neither does the warrant, but nice try at misdirection.

Yes it does you either a) never read it or B) are lying because its indefensible.

As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the Constitution give the Congress sole right to mint and control money, that is sole and absolute, there is no wiggle room there Stevie. Along with that right comes the power to regulate and enforce that right by law. As has all been pointed out to you on numerous occasions.

No it doesn't...maybe you need to get a real copy of the constitution instead of the one from you last box of cracker jacks. I've seen this argument from uniformed people like yourself before. The constitution says at section 10:

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;"

Clearly if the government had the exclusive right to make money then section 10 would not be there because the states couldn't make any coins at all.

Steve, a gift card, is nothing more than a credit receipt or voucher in plastic form, issued by a merchant. Try though you may like you cannot twist that into issuing currency. Credit vouchers are a long established fact. Nice try though. No Stevie, gift cards are not advertised as currency, they are advertised as gift cards, and just because you are losing the argument, you cannot make them something they are not.

As I posted above the word "currency" fits a lot of things, none are deemed illegal. The word currency doesn't make something illegal. I think you need to understand what the law says rather than what you want it to say.

[SteveSy]

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 [1] or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The key phrase here is "current money", this does not mean the dictionary definition of "currency". The Supreme Court has said current money means legal tender. http://supreme.justia.com/us/123/105/case.html

It's money that has been declared as legal for all debts public and private by the federal government. Norfed in fact touts how Liberty Dollars are the antitheses to legal tender currency because legal tender is based on a fiat system while theirs are backed by gold and silver. Their notes are anything but an attempt to be legal tender/ current money, their position is that current money is what's destroying U.S.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

Please explain how "obligation or other security of the United States" remotely applies to the liberty dollar.

Uh, Steve, Liberty Dollars are not “obligations or other securities of the United States.” Go back and read the statute. Why would you think the phrase applies to the Liberty Dollar? Why would you think that I WOULD THINK that the phrase applies to the Liberty Dollar? Are you getting sleepy? Did you eat too much turkey?

SteveSy wrote:

"Current Money" is money that has the sanction of the federal government, that is its obvious meaning.

Duh, no Steve, go back and read the statute.

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.

If “current money” meant “money that has the sanction of the federal government,” then section 486 would make no sense. Section 486 covers not only coins that are made to resemble official U.S. coins, but also coins of original design (e.g., coins that do NOT resemble official U.S. coins). Therefore, section 486 criminalizes specified uses of coins, even if those coins look nothing like official U.S. Mint coins. Therefore, the term “current money” as used in section 486 cannot possibly be limited to “money that has the sanction of the federal government.”

If a coin were minted by von NotHaus with nothing but the picture of Mickey Mouse on it, the making and use of that coin would still violate section 486 PROVIDED THAT (1) the Mickey Mouse “coin” is deemed to be a “coin” within the meaning of section 486 (and I don’t know whether it would be or not), and (2) von NotHaus intended that the coin be used as “current money.”

Think, Steve. Read the statute.

SteveSy wrote:

the intended purpose of the law is to keep someone from issuing currency and passing it off as government accepted money good for all debts public and private.

No, Steve, the language “good for all debts public and private” refers to the concept of “legal tender,” not to the concept of “current money.” You are still confused on the basic concepts. This is not about whether something was intended as “legal tender.”

SteveSy wrote:

The word "coin" can not mean anything identified as the dictionary term coin as this would make every coin including game tokens and casino coins illegal.

Well, no, Steve. Think about what you’re saying. Take a deep breath and read the statute. Even if the term “coin” were to include game tokens and casino coins, section 486 would not make the use of game tokens or casino coins illegal – unless you use those game tokens and casino coins as “current money.”

Game tokens are not generally made or used as “current money.” People use them to play board games. People don’t generally try to spend their game tokens at Walmart. And people generally don’t try to spend casino coins at Walt Disney World. They’re (usually) used only in the casino.

And if anyone tries to use game tokens or casino coins as “current money” – at Walmart, or at Walt Disney World, etc., then maybe that WOULD BE ILLEGAL under section 486. That’s not my problem.

Steve, you seem to be unable to grasp the legal concept of “elements of the offense.” When you read a criminal statute, you have to break it down into its component parts. In the case of section 486, the mere fact that something is a “coin” for purposes of section 486 does not make each and every use of that coin a section 486 crime. You have to read the entire statute. You have to consider the concept of “current money.” Each word in the statute has some significance.

SteveSy wrote:

Gift cards apply to every one of your arguments. They are intended to be used to purchase items at retailers around the country. They are backed up by the reserves of the company that issues them.

No Steve. The mere fact that a gift card is used to purchase items at retailers around the country does not make that gift card into a “coin.” And it doesn’t make that gift card “current money” either. You are delusional.

Gift cards are not coins. And gift cards are not used, and cannot be used in our economy, as current money. As we have explained to you before, gift cards are redeemable only at the specified issuing stores that honor them. I cannot take my Best Buy gift card and use it at Ernie’s Hardware Store, or whatever.

By contrast, my Federal Reserve notes are readily accepted anywhere. Apparently you don’t have a lot of experience with Best Buy gift cards or Federal Reserve notes, or you would know this. You don’t seem to get out much, Steve.

And I hate to be the one to break the news to you, Steve, but gift cards are not “backed up by the reserves of the company that issues them.” There are no “reserves” of money to back up the gift card you may have bought at Best Buy.

Here’s how a gift card works. I buy a gift card for $100. Let’s say that I plunk down a one hundred dollar bill. Best Buy takes that $100 Federal Reserve note, and gives me a $100 Best Buy card. The $100 Federal Reserve note immediately becomes the unencumbered property of Best Buy, which is free to spend it anywhere, anytime, any way. And Best Buy is under no legal obligation to set aside any other money to cover my card, either. On the books of Best Buy the entry will be as follows (I’m using my own account titles, as I don’t have access to Best Buy’s books to see the actual account titles):

Debit cash $100
Credit gift card liability $100

The liability on the books is what you may be thinking of as a “reserve.” But it’s not really a reserve. It’s actually a liability. The economic substance of this transaction is that I have LOANED one hundred dollars to Best Buy.

Now, I give the Gift Card to my nephew, and he goes to Best Buy and purchases $100 of Sony electronics merchandise. Now, let’s say that the merchandise is on the books of Best Buy in an inventory account at $75 – the cost incurred by Best Buy to acquire that merchandise from the Sony distributor.

Now, Best Buy makes the following entry on its books:

Debit gift card liability $100
Debit cost of goods sold $75
Credit sales revenues $100
Credit merchandise inventory $75

Now, the gift card liability is extinguished (debits and credits are equal in that account, resulting in a zero balance), and the merchandise has been removed from the inventory account. And Best Buy has made a $25 profit (on the profit and loss statement, you have sales revenues of $100 less cost of goods sold of $75). Of course, we’re ignoring INCOME TAX (sorry, Steve) and lots of other incidental stuff.

I repeat: Gift cards are not generally backed up by anything owned by the retailer who issues them. The issuance of a gift card involves the creation of a liability (a pre-purchase).

Steve, you shoot from the hip too much. Slow down. Think.

[SteveSy]

Duh, no Steve, go back and read the statute.

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.

If “current money” meant “money that has the sanction of the federal government,” then section 486 would make no sense. Section 486 covers not only coins that are made to resemble official U.S. coins, but also coins of original design (e.g., coins that do NOT resemble official U.S. coins). Therefore, section 486 criminalizes specified uses of coins, even if those coins look nothing like official U.S. Mint coins. Therefore, the term “current money” as used in section 486 cannot possibly be limited to “money that has the sanction of the federal government.”

It says it right there goofy....."intended for use as current money", current money means legal tender per the Supreme Court. It doesn't even have to look like what you have in your pocket because even the government sometimes redesigns money. The purpose of the law is clearly to stop someone from making notes that pretend to be notes the federal government made, had made by another party, or declared to be legal tender. It's to stop someone making a note and saying "Here's a new looking U.S. $20 bill the treasury just made, give me my gas." or " The federal government just declared ABC notes to be legal tender for all debts public and private by law."

If a coin were minted by von NotHaus with nothing but the picture of Mickey Mouse on it, the making and use of that coin would still violate section 486 PROVIDED THAT (1) the Mickey Mouse “coin” is deemed to be a “coin” within the meaning of section 486 (and I don’t know whether it would be or not), and (2) von NotHaus intended that the coin be used as “current money.”

He would have had to try and convince people that he was making them for or by the authority of the federal government. He never tried to do either. In fact he advertises that its not government money as if thats beneficial.

[Famspear]

No, Steve, you are the goofy one. You are still confusing the concepts of "current money" and "legal tender." Look at the legal definitions of those terms. And go back and read section 486 again. You are a glutton for punishment.

[Famspear]

SteveSy wrote:

The purpose of the law is clearly to stop someone from making notes that pretend to be notes the federal government made, had made by another party, or declared to be legal tender

No, section 486 does not deal with the topic of "legal tender."

Stevie-poo, the purpose of section 486 is not to stop someone from making notes that pretend to be notes, or notes that pretend to be anything else. Section 486 does not apply to notes.

Notes are made of paper. Paper is that soft, crinkly stuff that is made from trees. Section 486 does not apply to paper money.

Section 486 deals only with coins. Coins are those little round metallic things, you know?

[Famspear]

And you wonder why we don't take you seriously, Steve.

[notorial dissent]

There's no more FRN's behind Gift cards then there is FRN's behind liberty dollars, they're merchants holding a credit to the holder. They control how much you will or not receive by controlling that credit.
Oh, and what pray tell created that credit the merchant is holding then Steve?

And guess what when you receive a rebate from cingular which is supposed to be in U.S. dollars you get a visa giftcard instead to be used as "money".

And again, that credit was established between Visa and Cingular as an agreement, meaning that everyone is in the loop and the consumer doesn't have to take on the responsibility of convincing someone that the Visa card has value. Why didn't Nuthaus issue Visa cards instead of Liberty dollars? And why do you keep trying to compare apples to oranges?

But the receiver is getting this card without a prior agreement. I never said "I'll take a Visa card instead of my rebate in cash." I was forced to accept an alternative method of money. Not even Nothaus is forcing people to accept these for payments.
And if you had bothered to read the rebate form or rules, I’ll just bet that somewhere in there it said you would get the rebate in the form of a visa gift card. Again, you obfuscate. If the rebate is in the form of a visa gift card, it is a blank debit card with X number of dollars credited to the account, so you did in fact get cash, just in the form of credit to a universally spendable account. If you absolutely have to have cash in your crinkly wittle hand then go buy something for a penny and then you’ll have your cash.

You act as if people were forced to take these notes or they were not voluntarily accepted and used. You have one example of someone who tried to misuse the notes, something Nothaus had nothing to do with out of what 20 million dollars worth? It would be like me showing an example of someone trying to use a mastercard where they didn't accept mastercard.....your arguments are just lame.
I don’t believe that anyone has made such a silly claim, excepting your humble self that is, and that is not and never has been the issue. The issue is that they have the appearance of valid coin, and thus violate the law. The other side of that is that if the users do follow the protocol suggested by von Nuthouse, it could leave an innocent party stuck with an item that is unusable by them, uncashable by them, and not worth the face value on them, and because they come under the counterfeit coin statutes could be seized by the treasury agents and the merchant would be out the product and the token as well. That is what the main complaint is. They are not worth their face value, they are uncashable, and they are possibly illegal to possess.

What he's doing is no different than exchanging gift cards for trade. They represent title to the amount of silver or gold denoted on the note. That amount, from what I see, was never denied to anyone who asked for it.
Only in your eyes apparently. A gift card is a credit voucher at a specific merchant. There is no designated place where you can go that they will be accepted, let alone accepted at par. The non argument you continue with is irrelevant, noone has disputed what they notes say, it has been suggested, that there may not be sufficient reserves to cover them, but that is all.

Right, and liberty dollars never claimed to be real treasury dollars either..

And again, no one said they had, what was said was that they had the appearance of valid coinage, which is a crime.

At least liberty dollars are not pretending in any way shape or form to be real treasury money while the "replica's" are and they are somehow legal.

Now that's laughable.....I never claimed it was anything other than a replica pretending to be a real coin.

And yet you made the above quote exactly contradicting yourself. The replica is a replica because it claims to be one, and nothing else, and mainly because it does not exactly copy the original, and omits vital bits and does not violate the statute.

Nice try here Steve, but the only definition of currency that counts here is the one in the statute that they violate, and the rest of your examples specifically do not fit the definition because they are defined legally otherwise. Again a nice but equally futile attempt to claw your way out of the hole you dug with your own mouth.

"No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;"

Quite true and totally irrelevant. It says nothing about. Minting or setting value, it says that they STATES cannot legally cause anything but gold or silver to be acceptable as tender. Not the same thing at all.

Clearly if the government had the exclusive right to make money then section 10 would not be there because the states couldn't make any coins at all.

I can’t quite believe you were dumb enough to have said that, since the state in fact do not nor have had in fact the power to do so since the founding of the republic. You’re getting really desperate Stevie.

[LPC]

The Supreme Court has said current money means legal tender. http://supreme.justia.com/us/123/105/case.html

Liar.

The cited case (Bull v. First Nat. Bank of Kasson, 123 U.S. 105 (1887)) does not use the phrase "current money" and has nothing to do with coins, currency, or legal tender. The sole legal issue in the case was whether certain "drafts" or "bills of exchange" (meaning what we would now call "checks") were "overdue and dishonored paper at the time they were presented."

So you either lied about the meaning of the decision, you were too stupid or illiterate to understand the meaning of the decision, or you were so dishonest and delusional that you really didn't care what the decision was about.

My personal opinion is all three. You are a liar, you are stupid and illiterate, and you are dishonest and delusional, and your postings to this forum provide clear evidence of the truth of my opinion.

[grixit]

My guess is that Steve has an industrial strength hypnosis machine. I picture a bank of strobe lights and a set of surround speakers. A mister diffuses psilocybin and ether into the air. Steve stares into the lights while a synthesized voice repeats in warm soothing tones whatever it is he wants to make himself believe. After one 30 minute treatment, he's irrevocably committed to the position, and ready to post.

[SteveSy]

My personal opinion is all three. You are a liar, you are stupid and illiterate, and you are dishonest and delusional, and your postings to this forum provide clear evidence of the truth of my opinion.

Dan you're as ignorant as you always were....why don't you go make up some more crap and misquote some more Supreme Court cases on your FAQ. It seems thats about the only thing you do well.

[SteveSy]

Clearly if the government had the exclusive right to make money then section 10 would not be there because the states couldn't make any coins at all.

I can’t quite believe you were dumb enough to have said that, since the state in fact do not nor have had in fact the power to do so since the founding of the republic. You’re getting really desperate Stevie.

What is important is the constitution does not grant the government the exclusive authority to coin money. It simply permits the government to make coins and regulate the value there of. Nothing in the constitution grants the federal government the exclusive right to make coins.