Ok what's wrong with the article

[SteveSy]

Where did the problem occur? The first occurred when NotHaus, in his marketing, encouraged buyers of his products to go into merchants and use the medallions or certificates in lieu of FRNs. That moved him across that fine line from collectible seller into counterfeiter, by selling his items and telling people to use them like FRNs. The second problem occurred when purchasers of his products tried to use them in lieu of FRNs and US minted coins. Once you do that, the purchasers have entered the realm of trying to pass counterfeit money.

I honestly can't see how you are "counterfeiting" by using an item to trade with regardless if it's silver or gold. Besides he's not using them at the retailers other people are. To counterfeit means to duplicate or attempt to duplicate something else. He wasn't trying to duplicate, mimic or anything else related to the the FRN. In fact his entire position was that FRN's are the opposite of what he was selling. As I said before using this very broad interpretation of counterfeiting and "current money" of yours would make a gift check with $20 written on it also counterfeiting.

All of you keep on claiming its different by using arguments that are not in the law, such as you get less in silver than the face value in FRN's marked on the coin or note. Where is that in the law that makes it counterfeiting or current money?

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

[Dr. Caligari]

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

Because if the store owner accepts the Travelers Check, AMEX will pay him the face value in FRNs. If a shopkeeper accepts a $20 Libbie, he will find it is worth much less than $20.

[Agent Observer]

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

Because, you nitwit, the AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it will get you exactly $1 (FRN) from Amex. The $1 libby isnt worth $1, it is only worth about $.75 (given that a libby with $20 printed on it reportedly only contains $15 (FRN) in silver metal). So, since your business sense is so horribly lacking, I will spell it out for you: the person who accepts it at face value loses about 25% due to the misrepresentation (AKA Fraud).

[Agent Observer]

D'oh... Beat to the punch...

[Famspear]

Imalawman wrote:

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.

Absolutely. Somewhere in a prior thread, SteveSy said something like "I (SteveSy) decide what the law is for myself, that's my right," or words fairly close to that.

One of the teeny-weeny problems for the Anti-Government types (tax protester or otherwise) is that if society adopted the SteveSy "I decide the law for myself" rule, each of these people would want to decide the rule for himself or herself -- and they would end up fighting among themselves as to which of them -- SteveSy versus Blowhard Hendrickson versus Irwin Schiff versus Larken Rose versus on and on and on -- would have the "right" to promulgate the rules.

Wait a minute, come to think of it, some of them already fight among themselves, anyway.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

I honestly can't see how you are "counterfeiting" by using an item to trade with regardless if it's silver or gold.

But they are not trading. They are instructed to tell the merchant that this is legal money (a means of exchange -- not a barter good) and that the face value represents the value of the coin in USD. The value of the coin is not what is represented in USD, much like the value of the million dollar bill. That is counterfiting. You can make million dollar bills if you like but you must specify it is not legal tender. I was once handed a infinity dollar bill once for a fake can of corn Stretch Armstrong was buying, but since it was drawn in crayon, and given to me as a joke, nobody cared. If Stretch Arrmstrong had sold them on Colfax Ave and told people to use them to buy real goods, he would be on the Island of Incarcerated Toys.

As I said before using this very broad interpretation of counterfeiting and "current money" of yours would make a gift check with $20 written on it also counterfeiting.

No because with a gift check you purchase a $20 coupon to be used later at the merchant.

All of you keep on claiming its different by using arguments that are not in the law, such as you get less in silver than the face value in FRN's marked on the coin or note. Where is that in the law that makes it counterfeiting or current money?

The law is in the alternate currency laws which makes the base value equal to the dollar. Deposits must equal the value of notes in circulation. VonNothaus was making money of his currency through defrauding the recipient into believing they were purchasing $20 worth of silver. The deposits were less than the value of the paper and the coins contained less silver than the price. They were represented at a face value.

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

A check is backed by a deposit, a Travelers check by a certified deposit. If there is no money in the checking account you can be arrested for theft by check or fraud.

[SteveSy]

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

Because, you nitwit, the AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it will get you exactly $1 (FRN) from Amex. The $1 libby isnt worth $1, it is only worth about $.75 (given that a libby with $20 printed on it reportedly only contains $15 (FRN) in silver metal). So, since your business sense is so horribly lacking, I will spell it out for you: the person who accepts it at face value loses about 25% due to the misrepresentation (AKA Fraud).

There you go I asked you not to use some nonsense not in the law. Where does it say if the exchange is not a 1-1 then its counterfeiting or a violation of "current money" laws.

btw, you said it was "fraud" show me where fraud was alleged in the warrant. More importantly you are using a brand new libby, what about the libby's that are worth more than what is written on them, by about 50%, like a year 2000 libby?

[SteveSy]

I honestly can't see how you are "counterfeiting" by using an item to trade with regardless if it's silver or gold.

But they are not trading. They are instructed to tell the merchant that this is legal money (a means of exchange -- not a barter good) and that the face value represents the value of the coin in USD.

I have to stop you right there. I have not seen anywhere where NorFed instructs the user to claim "it's legal money". The value of the coin is whatever someone determines its perceived value is. How else can it be, a FRN is virtually worthless if you're going to look at what its actual value is, it only has value because it is perceived to have value. If you sold the paper and ink it would be virtually worthless same goes with all currency issued by the treasury. You're making a special case for the liberty dollar and looking at what its backed by. That is not in the law for one and two its backed by more than FRN's. So if anything is a fraud its the FRN.

For instance Ron Paul liberty dollars are going for triple their face value, seems to me they're valued at triple their face value. Personally I would take a $20 Ron Paul liberty in exchange for $20 in services....I could sell them for $100+ easily.

20 Ron Paul Liberty Dollars
27 bids currently at $305


Sorry for the edits had to get the link working right.

[SteveSy]

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

A check is backed by a deposit, a Travelers check by a certified deposit. If there is no money in the checking account you can be arrested for theft by check or fraud.

The libby's are backed by a deposit....what's the difference? Where in the law does it say that something backed in any other institution other than a credit company and or bank is a violation of "current money" or counterfeiting laws?

btw, I don't believe Amex is required by law to honor those checks. I think it's their private institution and they can refuse whatever they like. Probably not a good business decision on their part but it's still an option same with liberty dollars.

As I said before using this very broad interpretation of counterfeiting and "current money" of yours would make a gift check with $20 written on it also counterfeiting.

No because with a gift check you purchase a $20 coupon to be used later at the merchant.

Liberty dollars are purchased to be used later at a merchant. Same thing. If I took a gift check to a merchant who did not accept them and tried to use them would I be counterfeiting FRN's? Would I be violating "current money" laws?

[SteveSy]

If I walk in to a store with a AMEX Travelers check with $1 on it or a Libby with $1 on it where the store doesn't accept travelers check how is it any different?

Because if the store owner accepts the Travelers Check, AMEX will pay him the face value in FRNs. If a shopkeeper accepts a $20 Libbie, he will find it is worth much less than $20.

I know out of all the people here you are the most reasonable. You know as well as I do that distinction is not in the law. Using your theory if Amex charged 10% to redeem that check it would be counterfeiting or a violation of current money laws. That is what we're talking about and not about fairness or anything else. Besides as I stated in another thread the merchant has the opportunity to use that same note or coin at another merchant, or sell them to someone else. Also, you are using a current libby to make that statement. An older libby is worth more than its face value in FRN's in silver or gold. Does that mean older libby's are not in violation of the laws we're discussing?

[SteveSy]

Which part of the word CHECK don't you get SteveSy? The Cs?. The H? The E? Or is it the K?

So if NorFed called them checks instead of notes it would be ok? Where does the law make this distinction btw?

A check, under the aegis of the U.S. banking system goes from the depositors bank, to the Federal reserve Bank the depositors bank uses and from there to the Federal Reserve Bank the bank of the check writer uses and from there to the check writer's bank. Along the way it is photographed and committed to microfilm or electronic storage, by both the depositing bank and the bank on which the check was drawn. It used to be, the check physically made the journey, but today, it is committed to electronic storage at the FRB level and from there it moves electronically.

So?

Now, if you cannot see how that is different than using FRNs, or things posing as FRNs (commonly called counterfeits) then I will be reduced to interpretive dance to get through to you. It will be cacophanous, very avant-garde, with mild nudity.

I see the difference, for one they look different, I'm asking you the difference under the law. Both have $ and the word dollars written on them, are honored by a private institution and are used like cash.

If you refuse to see the difference because it does not fit in your little imaginary world where everything is the same, even if they are completely different, then you are being obstreperous.

What I refuse is your attempt to construct a strawman and/or a total non sequitur....You're basing your argument on something that isn't in the law to show why one is a violation of the law and the other isn't.

[grixit]

Note to Steve: there was counterfeiting before there was paper money.

[SteveSy]

Note to Steve: there was counterfeiting before there was paper money.

So?

counterfeiting:
To make a copy of, usually with the intent to defraud;

Where can you find that NorFed attempted to copy an FRN?





Ummm sorry don't see the similarity there, certainly not an attempt to copy.

[Prof]

As a matter of law and fact, the instrument called a check and the FRN are so completely different that I cannot believe you asked that question.

First, checks are governed (generally) by art. 3 and 4 of the UCC. Sec. 3.104(0f) defines a check as as a draft, payable on demand, drawn on a bank. A check may also be a cashier's check (check on same bank as issues) or a teller's check (check drawn by one bank on another).

In other words, a check is a written instruction to the drawer's bank to pay funds drawer has on deposit to the named payee or the person to whom the check has been endoresed or, if the named payee is blank or is designated as cash, to the holder of the check. (Order "paper" is paid to the order of a named payee by the drawer; bearer "paper" does not have a named payee, but a bank or other negotiator may require an endorsement by the holder.)

These instruments are not legal tender and are not related to any government function.

(A Treasury Check issued by the US government on the Treasury is a not a actually a check but is rather a draft payable on demand since it is not drawn on a bank.)

No check is legal tender. No party is required to accept a check in payment of a debt unless he or she or it has contracted to do so. Ever seen a sign in a store: NO CHECKS ACCEPTED?

In other words, FRN's are legal tender. Checks are written directions to a bank to pay the holder. If there are no funds in the account, the bank does not pay.

The Liberty currency pictured above looks like what are called drafts -- that is, a promise to pay bearer on demand, but not payable thru a bank. However, the engraving, etc., does look like currency, which is legal tender.

Confusion or not, the liberty currency (paper) is nothing but a piece of paper with pretty writing that says that Liberty will pay you X dollars -- but, of course, who knows where Liberty will get X dollars. Any merchant who accept that paper crap deserves what happens to him/her. At least, with a check, I can find the person who gave me the hot check when it gets sent back NSF.

[SteveSy]

As a matter of law and fact, the instrument called a check and the FRN are so completely different that I cannot believe you asked that question.

First, checks are governed (generally) by art. 3 and 4 of the UCC. Sec. 3.104(0f) defines a check as as a draft, payable on demand, drawn on a bank. A check may also be a cashier's check (check on same bank as issues) or a teller's check (check drawn by one bank on another).

I wasn't specifically talking about bank checks, regardless that doesn't answer the question, why is it not a violation of the "current money" and counterfeiting laws but a liberty dollar is?

In other words, a check is a written instruction to the drawer's bank to pay funds drawer has on deposit to the named payee or the person to whom the check has been endoresed or, if the named payee is blank or is designated as cash, to the holder of the check. (Order "paper" is paid to the order of a named payee by the drawer; bearer "paper" does not have a named payee, but a bank or other negotiator may require an endorsement by the holder.)

And?

These instruments are not legal tender and are not related to any government function.

And neither is a liberty dollar.

No check is legal tender. No party is required to accept a check in payment of a debt unless he or she or it has contracted to do so. Ever seen a sign in a store: NO CHECKS ACCEPTED?

Same with liberty dollars.

In other words, FRN's are legal tender. Checks are written directions to a bank to pay the holder. If there are no funds in the account, the bank does not pay.

Explains nothing to make a distinction between liberty dollars and Checks with $ and the word dollars written on them when we are discussing why one is a violation of the current money laws and the other isn't..

The Liberty currency pictured above looks like what are called drafts -- that is, a promise to pay bearer on demand, but not payable thru a bank. However, the engraving, etc., does look like currency, which is legal tender.

If you think they look like USD you're either blind or just saying it so you have a point.

Confusion or not, the liberty currency (paper) is nothing but a piece of paper with pretty writing that says that Liberty will pay you X dollars -- but, of course, who knows where Liberty will get X dollars. Any merchant who accept that paper crap deserves what happens to him/her. At least, with a check, I can find the person who gave me the hot check when it gets sent back NSF.

Which of course has nothing to do with the laws in question.

[Quixote]

There are two discussions going on. First, if the Liberty Dollar coins violate federal law and second, if von Nothaus was running a scam. The two questions are independent of one another, but the discussions appear to be intertwined.

If minting and passing Libbies is a violation of 18 USC 486, it would be so regardless of the value of the coins. The true value of the coins relative to their cost and face value is relevant only to the scam question.

Von Nothaus's scheme would be just as crooked if production of the product were not itself a crime. Selling $15 worth of product for $20 isn't always a crime, but lying about the product while doing so is illegal in most states and may violate federal law as well.