Liberty Dollar Update

[SteveSy]

Yes they did, the government does that nonsense all the time. They stack charges based off of a single charge. If that initial charge fails all the rest fall like dominoes. If the government can not prove he violated the currency statute then the government has nothing to support all of the other charges. The government in its complaint provided nothing to show he was involved in mail or wire fraud, or laundering money separate and apart form the currency violation. They're all linked together.

Um, wha? Money laundering is separate and distinct from the other charges.
And as for what was and was not in the civil complaint, that does not preclude or demonstrate whether they would or would not seek other/additional charges. And yes Steve, they did show the money laundering was separate from the currency violation (i.e. that the bullion was being used to launder the money can be prosecuted separately and in fact could be prosecuted SOLELY).

They have to have something in order to seize the bullion. Point out the evidence please that shows money laundering has taken place. I'll be waiting, the only thing you'll find is money laundering based on the violation of the currency statute.

[notorial dissent]

Yes they did, the government does that nonsense all the time. They stack charges based off of a single charge. If that initial charge fails all the rest fall like dominoes. If the government can not prove he violated the currency statute then the government has nothing to support all of the other charges. The government in its complaint provided nothing to show he was involved in mail or wire fraud, or laundering money separate and apart form the currency violation. They're all linked together.
No, they did not. The charges are all separate from each other and each is a separate violation, and each will have to be and can be proven separately.

Right, that's why it still hasn't gone to trial. I've read the complaint there's nothing in there to support those other charges except if he violated the currency statute. Read it yourself and point out anything.
Which has nothing to do with it, despite your delusions, there is not law that says they have to proceed at a set pace, there has not been a hearing on the charges yet. There is no requirement that there be anything more than grounds for the complaint for it to be filed, proof comes in at a later date.

People were never enticed to buy Libbys to invest in precious metals. They purchased the notes and coins for the private currency aspect with the added benefit that the money would always be worth something, because it was backed by precious metals. There was no claim made that the face value of the note or coins would equal the spot price of silver in FRN's.
BS. They were enticed with a promise of something that wasn’t true at the time and would in fact never be true, and von Nutbert was playing on their naivete and general gullibility, which as far as I am concerned constitutes fraud.

Why would it, its not an FRN, its $20 of private currency not $20 in FRN's. Does the $20 mark on Canadian money equal $20 in FRN's?
Cute Stevie, a nice attempt at a wiggle, but still just an attempt. A $20 FRN is, by law, worth $20, a $20 CN is worth whatever they are worth today, as they too are back by their government, a $20 libby is worth whatever the price of silver is today and the discount someone is willing to buy it at, but they are not worth the $20 stamped on them, and that constitutes fraud.

There was nothing counterfeit about it. It was never sold as legal tender or U.S. currency. In fact you would have to be pretty damn stupid to buy U.S. currency with U.S currency. What would be the point? You were obviously buying something that was not U.S currency otherwise why would you buy it in the first place. They weren't ripped off, no one that purchased the notes and coins has ever claimed they were ripped off. People buy things that aren't worth their market resale value in FRN's all the time. Do you think http://www.911twenty.com/ those contain $20 silver in FRN's? They have "Twenty Dollars" written on them.
And here you get truly disengenuous, they were sold with the intention that they would be used like a $20 FRN, the advertising for them, reporduced elsewhere proves that, and they meet the legal definition for counterfeit, so the argument is moot.

Demo posted what they actively encouraged people to do. Notice it says in capital letters to say its private currency. Also, this line destroys your argument and the government's that it was intended to be counterfeit.
"After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too "
Obviously that says very clearly what you are offering is not U.S. currency its something else but you will give them U.S. currency if they want it.

And what is he urging them to do? Spend them like legal currency, even you can’t be that dim Stevie, or maybe you can, but it doesn’t alter the intent or the infraction.

As you prove yet again, that you cannot read and think critically.

[Demosthenes]

Right, that's why it still hasn't gone to trial.

According to the filings in the docket, they haven't gone to trial because the government requested a stay pending a criminal investigation of von Nuthouse.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/nothouscivilforf.pdf

The civil complaint clearly presented a three pronged case.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/nothous1.pdf

Pages 21 and 22 of the above link state that the 1) assets seized were subject to forfeiture because money laundering was involved (paragraph 142), 2) the assets seized were subject to forfeiture because "uttering" / counterfeiting was involved (paragraph 143), and 3) the assets seized were subject to forfeiture because mail and wire fraud were involved (paragraph 144.)

I've read the complaint there's nothing in there to support those other charges except if he violated the currency statute. Read it yourself and point out anything.

You should reread the document. Numerous specific examples were given.

[SteveSy]

Yes they did, the government does that nonsense all the time. They stack charges based off of a single charge. If that initial charge fails all the rest fall like dominoes. If the government can not prove he violated the currency statute then the government has nothing to support all of the other charges. The government in its complaint provided nothing to show he was involved in mail or wire fraud, or laundering money separate and apart form the currency violation. They're all linked together.
No, they did not. The charges are all separate from each other and each is a separate violation, and each will have to be and can be proven separately.

No they can't. if they can't prove the liberty dollars were sold as "current money" all of the other charges fail. There can be no wire or mail fraud because selling a private currency is legal, there can be no counterfeiting because that relies on the "current money" argument and there can't be money laundering because no illegal activity has taken place and therefore "illegal" money was not converted in to legal money. Give it up....

People were never enticed to buy Libbys to invest in precious metals. They purchased the notes and coins for the private currency aspect with the added benefit that the money would always be worth something, because it was backed by precious metals. There was no claim made that the face value of the note or coins would equal the spot price of silver in FRN's.
BS. They were enticed with a promise of something that wasn’t true at the time and would in fact never be true, and von Nutbert was playing on their naivete and general gullibility, which as far as I am concerned constitutes fraud.

Exactly what wasn't true? Show the exact wording stated by him or his organization.

Why would it, its not an FRN, its $20 of private currency not $20 in FRN's. Does the $20 mark on Canadian money equal $20 in FRN's?
Cute Stevie, a nice attempt at a wiggle, but still just an attempt. A $20 FRN is, by law, worth $20, a $20 CN is worth whatever they are worth today, as they too are back by their government, a $20 libby is worth whatever the price of silver is today and the discount someone is willing to buy it at, but they are not worth the $20 stamped on them, and that constitutes fraud.

They aren't FRN's no more than Canadian dollars are FRN's....they're $20 of private currency. The U.S. government doesn't have the sole legal right to use the word "dollar" or the "$" sign.

There was nothing counterfeit about it. It was never sold as legal tender or U.S. currency. In fact you would have to be pretty damn stupid to buy U.S. currency with U.S currency. What would be the point? You were obviously buying something that was not U.S currency otherwise why would you buy it in the first place. They weren't ripped off, no one that purchased the notes and coins has ever claimed they were ripped off. People buy things that aren't worth their market resale value in FRN's all the time. Do you think http://www.911twenty.com/ those contain $20 silver in FRN's? They have "Twenty Dollars" written on them.
And here you get truly disengenuous, they were sold with the intention that they would be used like a $20 FRN, the advertising for them, reporduced elsewhere proves that, and they meet the legal definition for counterfeit, so the argument is moot.

No they were used as an alternative, not as an FRN. To counterfeit means that you are trying to offer your money as U.S> legal tender currency. Norfed never claimed they were legal tender, in fact as I showed they made a distinction right on their website. Ironically the entire purpose was to say FRN's are worthless and their money retains value. If anything its the antithesis of counterfeiting.

Demo posted what they actively encouraged people to do. Notice it says in capital letters to say its private currency. Also, this line destroys your argument and the government's that it was intended to be counterfeit.
"After 30 seconds, say, "I have US government legal tender money too "
Obviously that says very clearly what you are offering is not U.S. currency its something else but you will give them U.S. currency if they want it.

And what is he urging them to do? Spend them like legal currency, even you can’t be that dim Stevie, or maybe you can, but it doesn’t alter the intent or the infraction.
As you prove yet again, that you cannot read and think critically.[/quote]

So what? Trade or barter is not illegal. Using a currency other than U.S. currency isn't illegal. The government has to prove he tried to get people to use these as if the U.S. government had minted it, or as FRN's. He NEVER made such a claim in fact his mission was to say U.S> government minted money was crap.

[SteveSy]

Right, that's why it still hasn't gone to trial.

According to the filings in the docket, they haven't gone to trial because the government requested a stay pending a criminal investigation of von Nuthouse.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/nothouscivilforf.pdf

The civil complaint clearly presented a three pronged case.

http://www.cheatingfrenzy.com/nothous1.pdf

Pages 21 and 22 of the above link state that the 1) assets seized were subject to forfeiture because money laundering was involved (paragraph 142), 2) the assets seized were subject to forfeiture because "uttering" / counterfeiting was involved (paragraph 143), and 3) the assets seized were subject to forfeiture because mail and wire fraud were involved (paragraph 144.)

I've read the complaint there's nothing in there to support those other charges except if he violated the currency statute. Read it yourself and point out anything.

You should reread the document. Numerous specific examples were given.

No examples were made that are separate and apart from the "current money" argument. It ALL relies on that to be true. Mail and wire fraud can only take place if his money is illegal, otherwise its perfectly legal to sell or transact through the wire or mail. Money laundering also relies strictly on the "current money " argument. Otherwise no illegal gain was obtained and converted to "clean" money. The illegal gain is strictly tied to the sale of liberty dollars. If the liberty dollars are legal nothing bad was converted to good. Its hilarious, their proof he converted bad money to good is that he deposited funds in to the bank derived from the sale of liberty dollars and then wrote checks against those deposits, oh my god how dare he!

Its a fricking joke and you're all buying it.

[Dezcad]

They aren't FRN's no more than Canadian dollars are FRN's....they're $20 of private currency. The U.S. government doesn't have the sole legal right to use the word "dollar" or the "$" sign.

Canadaian Dollars say "Canada" on them

Zimbabwa dollars say Zimbabwe on them

So why does the Liberty Dollars say "USA" on them if they are not being represented as USA Dollars -

The answer is obvious that NutHouse intended it to represent US Dollars.

[Demosthenes]

No examples were made that are separate and apart from the "current money" argument. It ALL relies on that to be true.

Fraud was also given as an example in the document. Advertising that the underlying value of the precious metal is worth $20, when it's only worth $15...

[cynicalflyer]

They have to have something in order to seize the bullion. Point out the evidence please that shows money laundering has taken place. I'll be waiting, the only thing you'll find is money laundering based on the violation of the currency statute.

They did have something. It was called "probable cause" and was used in order to get the warrant to get the bullion. As for the evidence, well you got me there Steve I am not privy to the internal machinations and investigations of the FBI. What I can tell you is that the FBI presented sufficient evidence to get a warrant for the stuff in the first place. And FYI: money laundering and the currency statutes are once again entirely distinct criminal activities that are not reliant upon one another. Only in your mind is the one necessary for the other.

Read paragraphs 142 & 144 of the complaint for civil forfeiture. Or better still, let's read along together as a class. Bear in mind 18 USC 1956 = Laundering of monetary instruments

http://www.libertydollar.org/legal/pdf/ ... eiture.pdf

142. The defendant properties are subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §981(a)(1)(A), because is constitutes property involved in transactions and attempted transactions in violation of sections 1956 and 1957 of Title 18, United States Code, or property traceable to such property.

...

144. The defendant properties are subject to forfeiture under 18 U.S.C, § 981(a)(1)(C), 18
U.S.C. § 1956(c)(7), and 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), because it is property which constitutes or is
derived from proceeds traceable to the offenses of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and the offenses of conspiracies, under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, to commit mail fraud and wire fraud.

You will notice Steve the claim for forfeiture in Paragraph 142 is not even in the same PARAGRAPH as anything dealing with the current claims. And the claim for forfeiture under Paragraph 144 are about the laundering through wire and mail fraud. Again, nothing about the currency/coin/utterance (which are separate claims found in Paragraph 143) charges.

Do pay attention in the future, ok? It will help everyone.

[cynicalflyer]

No they can't. if they can't prove the liberty dollars were sold as "current money" all of the other charges fail.

Only in your little deluded world. Steve: the coins and other metals could be 100% perfectly legal in and of themselves but if they were used as a means of money laundering, the fact they the metal itself was never used for the "utterance of a coin" is immaterial.

there can't be money laundering because no illegal activity has taken place and therefore "illegal" money was not converted in to legal money.

Steve: try reading the money laundering statute, ok? Under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) laundering includes an effort "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". So in other words you do not have to have a predicate criminal act in obtaining the money for a laundering charge. The money itself could be perfectly legally obtained but if you shuffle it through NotHaus to hide from transaction reporting requirements (like, say, State or Federal income taxes) you run afoul of the statute and NotHaus picks up the charge as well.

[cynicalflyer]

Mail and wire fraud can only take place if his money is illegal, otherwise its perfectly legal to sell or transact through the wire or mail. Money laundering also relies strictly on the "current money " argument. Otherwise no illegal gain was obtained and converted to "clean" money. The illegal gain is strictly tied to the sale of liberty dollars.

Steve, Steve, Steve. You operate from a faulty assumption, namely, that the money or FRNs or whatever sent in have to have been derived from an illegal source for a wire fraud, mail fraud, or money laundering charge.

You are simply wrong. You can obtain money from a 100% legit, legal source but if you transmit with the intent to avoid things like the income tax, you are guilty.

As Ed and Elaine Brown and their postal money order shuffle game about that one.

[SteveSy]

Mail and wire fraud can only take place if his money is illegal, otherwise its perfectly legal to sell or transact through the wire or mail. Money laundering also relies strictly on the "current money " argument. Otherwise no illegal gain was obtained and converted to "clean" money. The illegal gain is strictly tied to the sale of liberty dollars.

Steve, Steve, Steve. You operate from a faulty assumption, namely, that the money or FRNs or whatever sent in have to have been derived from an illegal source for a wire fraud, mail fraud, or money laundering charge.

No it doesn't have to


The Department of Justice defines money laundering in the following manner:

Money laundering is the process by which criminals conceal or disguise the
proceeds of their crimes or convert those proceeds into goods and services. It
allows criminals to infuse their illegal money into the stream of commerce, thus
corrupting financial institutions and the money supply and giving criminals
unwarranted economic power.

It can be further described as follows:

A process...(a series of actions) through which income of illegal origin is
concealed, disguised, or made to appear legitimate (Main objective); and to
evade detection, prosecution, seizure, and taxation.

Notice in both cases the money is derived from an illegal source. Regardless of whether or not it does have to come from an illegal source on the mail fraud or wire fraud the fraudulent act that makes the wire and mail fraud possible is the act of violating the "current money" statute. Show many anything in the complaint that shows something other than selling liberty dollars to justify any of those crimes. Bottom line is if the liberty dollar turns out to be legal the government doesn't have a case for anything.

[SteveSy]

Steve: try reading the money laundering statute, ok? Under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) laundering includes an effort "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". So in other words you do not have to have a predicate criminal act in obtaining the money for a laundering charge. The money itself could be perfectly legally obtained but if you shuffle it through NotHaus to hide from transaction reporting requirements (like, say, State or Federal income taxes) you run afoul of the statute and NotHaus picks up the charge as well.

We're speaking in context of this charge not some other charge. There was no accusation that he was evading taxes or some reporting requirement so give it up. If someone else is shuffling it through NorFed that's their laundering charge not NorFed. NorFed would have to be shown to knowingly, via a conspiracy, funneling funds through to help someone avoid taxes or similar. No evidence or even an accusation of that occurs in the complaint. Again, to substantiate their claim of money laundering the FBI wrote checks to NorFed and traced their deposit to the company account then they got the records of the bank to show he wrote checks from that account. Turning illegally made money in to clean money, which is a frigging joke.

[cynicalflyer]

The Department of Justice defines money laundering in the following manner:

Not U.S. Code stuff deleted

And as I noted Steve, direct from the U.S. Code, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that requires a money laundering charge require that the money itself to be laundered was illegally obtained. A charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) requires only that the transfer be in order "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law".

act that makes the wire and mail fraud possible is the act of violating the "current money" statute.

Nonesense. The wire and mail fraud could just as easily be derived by efforts to avoid reporting transactions under state or Federal law such as the income tax.

[cynicalflyer]

There was no accusation that he was evading taxes or some reporting requirement so give it up. If someone else is shuffling it through NorFed that's their laundering charge not NorFed.

Actually, it is both. Again Steve, read the statute.

We've point out to you over and over and over again not only sections from the civil complaint but the federal money laundering statutes with respect to why the seizure of the bullion does NOT require anything to do with utterance of coins. You opt not to read. That is of course your option.

[SteveSy]

The Department of Justice defines money laundering in the following manner:

Not U.S. Code stuff deleted

And as I noted Steve, direct from the U.S. Code, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that requires a money laundering charge require that the money itself to be laundered was illegally obtained. A charge under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3) requires only that the transfer be in order "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law".

act that makes the wire and mail fraud possible is the act of violating the "current money" statute.

Nonesense. The wire and mail fraud could just as easily be derived by efforts to avoid reporting transactions under state or Federal law such as the income tax.

Quit with the could be nonsense, you have access to the complaint show where the government showed he tried "to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". This is just silly.

btw, what you quoted is so vague anyone failing to report even the slightest line item on their taxes is involved in money laundering.