• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberty Dollar creator convicted in federal court

donsutherland1 said:
IMO, although the rhetoric describing Mr. von NotHaus's minting of "currency" as "a unique form of domestic terrorism," goes too far, that does not change the reality that he was engaging in illegal activity. Previously, he deceptively advertised his "currency" as "real money." His website explicitly attempted to raise doubts about U.S. currency, which is legal tender. He had no authorization from Congress to mint money. Due to the confusion Mr. von NotHaus attempted to create in passing off his "currency" as "money," the U.S. mint had to issue a detailed statement informing people that the NotHaus "money" had no legal basis.

Had he minted strictly commemorative coins, there would have been no legal issues. Instead, Mr. von NotHaus went well beyond that. I am not surprised that he was convicted, as the legal case against him was quite clear-cut. Furthermore, I fully expect that the conviction will be upheld should he appeal it.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Mint's action was just part of a propaganda campaign to suppress a dissenting action. What he was doing was perfectly legal and there was no claim that the Liberty Dollars constituted legal tender. The term "real money" is just making the point that it is based on something real meaning precious metals.
 
MaggieD said:
That's ridiculous. Let's pay for everything in Frequent Flyer Miles.

We'd all better hope that the US Dollar never loses it's reserve currency status. If that should ever happen, well, let's just say stock up on MRE's.
Click to expand...

Why, are all the other countries whose currency is not reserve, eating MRE's?
 
American said:
Why, are all the other countries whose currency is not reserve, eating MRE's?
Click to expand...

We are not lucky enough to eat MRE`s we eat pig slop


What I think Maggie is refering to is


Should conditions reach the point at which the USD no longer represents the reserve currency it would indicate that inflation in the US is going to be extremely high and overall economic conditions in the US would be very difficult
 
American said:
So what about all the inflation in China?

Rising inflation may force China to let currency appreciate - Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...

China`s inflation is somewhat different then the inflation the US would be seeing (different causes)

The US is having a currency devaluation issue (QE1-2) and more then that most likely when foreign governments and insitutions feel the USD no longer represents a good store of value they will dump it. When that dumping occurs, prices for US assets, will go through the roof as trillions of USD will be returned to the US economy rather then being out in the world economy
 
Demon of Light said:
He doesn't need their authorization. As long as none of the businesses that accepted this as currency were deceived, I see no indication they were, his actions were completely within the bounds of the law. Look at the charges for which he was convicted. It was based on the claim that he was creating money that looks similar to government-issued currency. Specifically their claims were about the coins since the notes were clearly nothing like U.S. dollars. Their claims were ridiculous since no U.S. coin has a phone number or website on it, nor do they say "Liberty Dollar" on the back, but apparently they managed to hoodwink a jury.
Click to expand...

Making custom coin art and selling the coins as art it is not the same as using coins as money, and wouldn't have landed him in jail. He tried to make his own money. He needs Congressional authorization to make money. If he didn't, he wouldn't be in jail. If you make your own currency and try to use it as currency, even if both sides of the counter agree, you're committing a felony.
 
Demon of Light said:
The U.S. Mint's action was just part of a propaganda campaign to suppress a dissenting action. What he was doing was perfectly legal and there was no claim that the Liberty Dollars constituted legal tender. The term "real money" is just making the point that it is based on something real meaning precious metals.
Click to expand...

This was a criminal action, not a "propaganda campaign." Also, the context you are providing with respect to his bogus claim of "real money," is not what his website was advertising. As the website has been pulled by court order, I can only refer back to a message I posted in November 2007 at DP, which contained the exact quote. In that message, I noted:

...his organization's website advertises, "REAL Money Is Inflation Proof: Your Liberty Dollar Solution." Furthermore, the website claims, "Most people think prices have gone up, but in reality: it is the value of the US dollar that has actually gone down. Luckily, now there is a simple and profitable solution to the coming inflation - good old-fashioned, REAL money as the Founders intended... Now you can profit from the coming inflation with the inflation proof REAL money - the 100% gold and silver Liberty Dollar."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/25315-liberty-dollar-office-raided-3.html#post685477

Without doubt, Mr. von NotHaus was explicitly claiming that the U.S. dollar was not "real money," because in his advertising "real money" did not lose value to inflation. At the same time, he was claiming that his barter currency was "real money." No matter how one slices it, that was a direct attack on the legal tender nature of the U.S. dollar. Hence, I'm not surprised he was convicted and I expect his conviction will be upheld should he appeal.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Making custom coin art and selling the coins as art it is not the same as using coins as money, and wouldn't have landed him in jail. He tried to make his own money. He needs Congressional authorization to make money. If he didn't, he wouldn't be in jail. If you make your own currency and try to use it as currency, even if both sides of the counter agree, you're committing a felony.
Click to expand...

The key here is he was not claiming or intending for it to be used as legal tender.

donsutherland1 said:
This was a criminal action, not a "propaganda campaign."
Click to expand...

Well, I wouldn't go so far as to accuse the U.S. Mint of engaging in criminal action. :mrgreen:

Also, the context you are providing with respect to his bogus claim of "real money," is not what his website was advertising. As the website has been pulled by court order, I can only refer back to a message I posted in November 2007 at DP, which contained the exact quote. In that message, I noted:

...his organization's website advertises, "REAL Money Is Inflation Proof: Your Liberty Dollar Solution." Furthermore, the website claims, "Most people think prices have gone up, but in reality: it is the value of the US dollar that has actually gone down. Luckily, now there is a simple and profitable solution to the coming inflation - good old-fashioned, REAL money as the Founders intended... Now you can profit from the coming inflation with the inflation proof REAL money - the 100% gold and silver Liberty Dollar."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/25315-liberty-dollar-office-raided-3.html#post685477

Without doubt, Mr. von NotHaus was explicitly claiming that the U.S. dollar was not "real money," because in his advertising "real money" did not lose value to inflation. At the same time, he was claiming that his barter currency was "real money." No matter how one slices it, that was a direct attack on the legal tender nature of the U.S. dollar. Hence, I'm not surprised he was convicted and I expect his conviction will be upheld should he appeal.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but what you quote does not in any way suggest his actions were criminal. Of course, there is plenty you have left out. For instance, their brochure right on the front in big print said it was a Private Voluntary Barter Currency and it clarifies in the brochure that it is not legal tender.
 
Demon of Light said:
The key here is he was not claiming or intending for it to be used as legal tender.
Click to expand...

Hence his crime.

If it were legal tender then it would be, well, legal.

He was attempting to establish a fiat currency.
 
Demon of Light said:
Sorry, but what you quote does not in any way suggest his actions were criminal. Of course, there is plenty you have left out. For instance, their brochure right on the front in big print said it was a Private Voluntary Barter Currency and it clarifies in the brochure that it is not legal tender.
Click to expand...

It most definitely does. Only Congress can authorize the minting of money. To claim that his barter currency was "money" put him in violation of the law. Furthermore, to assert that his barter currency was "real money" for some supposed attribute that the U.S. dollar lacked, was an attack on the legal tender currency. Of course, the court reviewed far more information than was available on his website. That a jury found him guilty after less than two hours of deliberation indicates that the jury that convicted him also found the case to be quite clear-cut, as I believe it is. IMO, given the lack of ambiguity concerning the facts of the case, I expect that any appeals on his part will be unsuccessful.
 
Demon of Light said:
In this case businesses have reached an agreement to accept Liberty Dollars. These are not being given to businesses under the auspices of being a valid currency across the country, but as a currency only valid where it is accepted. We are talking about a system based entirely on consent between individuals to accept something other than U.S. currency as a method of payment. No aspect of that is in any way illegal unless you don't believe in rights.
Click to expand...


Your own article says that:

article said:
The charges against Innes include passing coins resembling genuine U.S. coins and intended for use as money, mail fraud and possession Liberty Dollar coins with intent to defraud. Authorities said when he was arrested that he faces up to 45 years in prison.

Despite warnings from the federal government, Innes told the Citizen-Times in 2006 that Liberty Dollars were legal.
Click to expand...


The charges appears to have to do with passing off the currency as the same the real dollar (with descriptions such as 'the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins') and fraud (giving it as change to unwitting customers who paid with the "real" dollar).
 
Demon of Light said:
The U.S. Mint's action was just part of a propaganda campaign to suppress a dissenting action. What he was doing was perfectly legal and there was no claim that the Liberty Dollars constituted legal tender. The term "real money" is just making the point that it is based on something real meaning precious metals.
Click to expand...

You are using a disingenuous arguement. "Real money" to most people means "legal tender". The picture of the coin also shows a conscious effort to look like the coin issued by the US Mint.

If you want to argue that people should have a right to issue money that can compete with the Reserves Notes, then fine, but to say that "real money" doesn't really mean real money makes you look ridiculous.
 
Jerry said:
Hence his crime.

If it were legal tender then it would be, well, legal.
Click to expand...

It not being legal tender is not the same as it being illegal. Legal tender means it is the official government-issued currency valid anywhere in the United States. This explicitly said it was not official currency but that it was private and voluntary.

He was attempting to establish a fiat currency.
Click to expand...

Fiat currency refers to currency that it is not tied to any sort of commodity and the Liberty Dollar was tied to precious metals like silver, gold, and platinum.

donsutherland1 said:
It most definitely does. Only Congress can authorize the minting of money. To claim that his barter currency was "money" put him in violation of the law. Furthermore, to assert that his barter currency was "real money" for some supposed attribute that the U.S. dollar lacked, was an attack on the legal tender currency. Of course, the court reviewed far more information than was available on his website.
Click to expand...

The terms for legal tender are "legal tender" and "current money" both terms explicitly stated by the group as not being valid terms for the Liberty Dollar. Nowhere in the Constitution or U.S. does it say only Congress can mint money or authorize the minting of money. It is clear under the law that only money minted in such a manner can be legal tender and it is made clear that this is not the case with the Liberty Dollar meaning it is not legal tender.

That a jury found him guilty after less than two hours of deliberation indicates that the jury that convicted him also found the case to be quite clear-cut, as I believe it is.
Click to expand...

In this case the U.S. attorney for the area likened him to a terrorist, making me wonder what kind of garbage the prosecution fed the jury and sure enough:

Among the 75 exhibits presented by the prosecution were Liberty Dollars, a T-shirt screened "U.S. Mint can bite me!" and production items confiscated from the privately owned Sunshine Mint in Idaho, where Liberty Dollars were produced under contract.

The prosecution's first witness, an FBI special agent, testified that the Liberty Dollar resembles and is confused with U.S. currency, and that the marketing of the Liberty Dollar was a multi-level marketing pyramid scheme.
Click to expand...

Source: Coin World

Just from that I can imagine the prosecution basically tried to paint Bernad von Nothaus as a radical anti-government nut who was swindling people and imperiling the U.S. economy.

nonpareil said:
Your own article says that:




The charges appears to have to do with passing off the currency as the same the real dollar (with descriptions such as 'the words “dollar,” “USA,” “Liberty,” “Trust in God” (instead of “In God We Trust”) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins') and fraud (giving it as change to unwitting customers who paid with the "real" dollar).
Click to expand...

Exactly how many U.S. coins do you see that have a phone number, website, and the term "Liberty Dollar" on them? Also, if a business agrees to accept Liberty Dollars but does not make sure customers are not unwittingly given Liberty Dollars I would say the liability is on the business.

nonpareil said:
You are using a disingenuous arguement. "Real money" to most people means "legal tender". The picture of the coin also shows a conscious effort to look like the coin issued by the US Mint.

If you want to argue that people should have a right to issue money that can compete with the Reserves Notes, then fine, but to say that "real money" doesn't really mean real money makes you look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Except in this case "real money" is intended to mean exactly what I said. In fact, if you look at the site (you can use the Way Back Machine at Internet Archive) you will see that on the site its usage of the term "real money" is simply saying that real money is inflation proof and goes on in that first part to define real money as gold and silver. In other words it is saying Liberty Dollars are real money because they are made of gold and silver not that it is legal tender.
 
Demon of Light said:
It not being legal tender is not the same as it being illegal. Legal tender means it is the official government-issued currency valid anywhere in the United States. This explicitly said it was not official currency but that it was private and voluntary.
Click to expand...

What matters is how it's used. The coin itself can say whatever you want and doesn't make any difference. It being private is the whole problem, and voluntary just means you weren't forced to participate in the conspiracy.
 
Jerry said:
What matters is how it's used. The coin itself can say whatever you want and doesn't make any difference. It being private is the whole problem, and voluntary just means you weren't forced to participate in the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

It being private is irrelevant so long as it is not claiming to be or intended to be used as legal tender. The Liberty Dollar is in fact never claimed to be legal tender and clearly is not intended to be used as legal tender since on the very front of its brochures it is described as a private voluntary barter currency. Were it intended to be used a legal tender they would not put in big text on the front of their brochure phrasing that clearly suggests it is not.
 
Demon of Light said:
It being private is irrelevant so long as it is not claiming to be or intended to be used as legal tender. The Liberty Dollar is in fact never claimed to be legal tender and clearly is not intended to be used as legal tender since on the very front of its brochures it is described as a private voluntary barter currency. Were it intended to be used a legal tender they would not put in big text on the front of their brochure phrasing that clearly suggests it is not.
Click to expand...

That's a felony. You can't do that. Private currencies are illegal.
 
Demon of Light said:
It not being legal tender is not the same as it being illegal. Legal tender means it is the official government-issued currency valid anywhere in the United States. This explicitly said it was not official currency but that it was private and voluntary.



Fiat currency refers to currency that it is not tied to any sort of commodity and the Liberty Dollar was tied to precious metals like silver, gold, and platinum.



The terms for legal tender are "legal tender" and "current money" both terms explicitly stated by the group as not being valid terms for the Liberty Dollar. Nowhere in the Constitution or U.S. does it say only Congress can mint money or authorize the minting of money. It is clear under the law that only money minted in such a manner can be legal tender and it is made clear that this is not the case with the Liberty Dollar meaning it is not legal tender.



In this case the U.S. attorney for the area likened him to a terrorist, making me wonder what kind of garbage the prosecution fed the jury and sure enough:



Source: Coin World

Just from that I can imagine the prosecution basically tried to paint Bernad von Nothaus as a radical anti-government nut who was swindling people and imperiling the U.S. economy.



Exactly how many U.S. coins do you see that have a phone number, website, and the term "Liberty Dollar" on them? Also, if a business agrees to accept Liberty Dollars but does not make sure customers are not unwittingly given Liberty Dollars I would say the liability is on the business.



Except in this case "real money" is intended to mean exactly what I said. In fact, if you look at the site (you can use the Way Back Machine at Internet Archive) you will see that on the site its usage of the term "real money" is simply saying that real money is inflation proof and goes on in that first part to define real money as gold and silver. In other words it is saying Liberty Dollars are real money because they are made of gold and silver not that it is legal tender.
Click to expand...


When people give me a coin, I don't say: wait, I'll check a website. I take a cursory glance see that it's quite like the one I'm used to and assume it's okay. I won't take the time to notice a phone number or whatever. Maybe I'm niave, but I believe alot of people are like that and these people are preying on people's trust. We trust the government to issue money, the people who make these coins use that fact and issue coins that look very much like those issued by the government. They could have choosen other designs that differentiate their coins from the pfficial mint's (which they claim to desire) but they didn't and I don't think it's a coincident.

Whatever they "intend" it to mean, it doesn't change that fact that "real money" is understood to mean "legal tender" by most people. I can say when I call a black person a nigger, I intend it to mean as an affectionate term for blacks, it doesn't change the fact that most people sees it as a derogative term. Again, I don't think it was incidential that they choose that term. It was meant to confuse their money with the real "real money".
 
Demon of Light said:
Source: The Asheville Citizen-Times

That is right, making money that is clearly distinct from U.S. government money and reaching agreement with businesses to accept said money is terrorism. I am curious when there are going to be federal raids on Chuck E. Cheese's, since it is clearly a hotbed of terrorism indoctrinating our youth with subversive activity.
Click to expand...

While I can see why the government wouldn't want competition with currency (even though there are many forms of alternative curriencies), "terrorist" is well over the top. I don't see why everything has to be terrorism these days. Besides, I've seen the liberty dollar, it's goal was not to spread fear and to try to get one's way through violence and terror. It was simply a metal backed currency and nothing more. We need to calm down with the sort of rhetoric we're using, if a US Attorney is going to be this out of control, then we're going to have to reel this in and starting being more responsible.
 
Demon of Light said:
In this case the U.S. attorney for the area likened him to a terrorist, making me wonder what kind of garbage the prosecution fed the jury and sure enough:


...Just from that I can imagine the prosecution basically tried to paint Bernad von Nothaus as a radical anti-government nut who was swindling people and imperiling the U.S. economy.
Click to expand...

As noted earlier, I believe the language referring to him as a "domestic terrorist" was a stretch. Having said that, the facts of the case remain the same. Mr. von NotHaus did not merely make commemorative coins. That would have been entirely legal. Instead, he attempted to create an alternative money without Congressional Authority. That violates the law. He was properly convicted. Unless he can somehow demonstrate that Congress had authorized or at least accepted his creating an alternative currency, any appeals he makes will also be unsuccessful. IMO, given the gravity of the situation (an attempt to undermine the U.S. currency) and lack of any indication of remorse to date for his criminal activity, I suspect that the judge will sentence him to serve a substantial portion of the maximum period permitted for the charges on which he was convicted.
 
Jerry said:
That's a felony. You can't do that. Private currencies are illegal.
Click to expand...

You can yell it from the rooftops until your face turns blue. It is not going to make you correct. What he was doing was completely within the bounds of the law.

nonpareil said:
When people give me a coin, I don't say: wait, I'll check a website. I take a cursory glance see that it's quite like the one I'm used to and assume it's okay. I won't take the time to notice a phone number or whatever. Maybe I'm niave, but I believe alot of people are like that and these people are preying on people's trust. We trust the government to issue money, the people who make these coins use that fact and issue coins that look very much like those issued by the government. They could have choosen other designs that differentiate their coins from the pfficial mint's (which they claim to desire) but they didn't and I don't think it's a coincident.

Whatever they "intend" it to mean, it doesn't change that fact that "real money" is understood to mean "legal tender" by most people. I can say when I call a black person a nigger, I intend it to mean as an affectionate term for blacks, it doesn't change the fact that most people sees it as a derogative term. Again, I don't think it was incidential that they choose that term. It was meant to confuse their money with the real "real money".
Click to expand...

You just plain aren't getting it. Perhaps you aren't even paying attention to anything I have said. Anyone who spent all of two seconds looking at both sides of the coin would realize it is not legal tender. I would expect any responsible cashier to actually look at how much a coin is worth before accepting it or handing it to someone, which would require looking at the side that says "Liberty Dollar" and has the phone number and website on it. Anything over a dollar will also be immediately suspect. Size is also an important consideration. I strongly doubt anyone with a modicum of intelligence would think this was a government-issued coin.

donsutherland1 said:
As noted earlier, I believe the language referring to him as a "domestic terrorist" was a stretch. Having said that, the facts of the case remain the same. Mr. von NotHaus did not merely make commemorative coins. That would have been entirely legal. Instead, he attempted to create an alternative money without Congressional Authority. That violates the law. He was properly convicted. Unless he can somehow demonstrate that Congress had authorized or at least accepted his creating an alternative currency, any appeals he makes will also be unsuccessful. IMO, given the gravity of the situation (an attempt to undermine the U.S. currency) and lack of any indication of remorse to date for his criminal activity, I suspect that the judge will sentence him to serve a substantial portion of the maximum period permitted for the charges on which he was convicted.
Click to expand...

Creating an alternative currency is not against the law. What is against the law is claiming your alternative currency is legal tender and attempting to pass it off as such. I already noted that his talk of real money was specifically a reference to gold and silver and that it is clearly referred to as private voluntary barter currency and stated clearly that it is not legal tender.
 
Demon of Light said:
You can yell it from the rooftops until your face turns blue. It is not going to make you correct. What he was doing was completely within the bounds of the law.
Click to expand...

Except that it wasn't legal at all, and he was convicted, and is in prison....
 
Demon of Light said:
What is against the law is claiming your alternative currency is legal tender and attempting to pass it off as such. I already noted that his talk of real money was specifically a reference to gold and silver and that it is clearly referred to as private voluntary barter currency and stated clearly that it is not legal tender.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what he did. His fake currency was promoted as American currency. His website also claimed that his currency was "real money," while the U.S. dollar was not. In other words, not only was he passing off his "money" as an alternative U.S. currency (the fake currency was labeled "USA" and "dollar," when Congress had given him no such authorization), he was also doing so in a fashion that attacked the nation's legal tender currency by demeaning it as not being "real" money. To claim that his fake currency was American currency, and the label "USA" did nothing less, was outright fraud.

Not surprisingly, the jury convicted him. The case was clear-cut. His appeals will almost certainly fail, and he will likely be sentenced to spend a significant amount of time in prison. Seeking to pass off his fake currency as American money and to attack the legitimacy of the nation's currency in the process should not be taken lightly.
 
Last edited:
Demon of Light said:
You can yell it from the rooftops until your face turns blue. It is not going to make you correct. What he was doing was completely within the bounds of the law.



You just plain aren't getting it. Perhaps you aren't even paying attention to anything I have said. Anyone who spent all of two seconds looking at both sides of the coin would realize it is not legal tender. I would expect any responsible cashier to actually look at how much a coin is worth before accepting it or handing it to someone, which would require looking at the side that says "Liberty Dollar" and has the phone number and website on it. Anything over a dollar will also be immediately suspect. Size is also an important consideration. I strongly doubt anyone with a modicum of intelligence would think this was a government-issued coin.



Creating an alternative currency is not against the law. What is against the law is claiming your alternative currency is legal tender and attempting to pass it off as such. I already noted that his talk of real money was specifically a reference to gold and silver and that it is clearly referred to as private voluntary barter currency and stated clearly that it is not legal tender.
Click to expand...



I've read and understood very well what's you're saying. What you don't seem to understand is that what you believe his intention was is irrelevant, what's relevant is the effect it has on other people. From a cursory glance that coin is made to look like the real one, and you may claim that these people don't have a "modicum of intelligence" but it doesn't change the fact that the similiarity appears to a conscious choice. He made people question the real US dollar, and maybe fell for it as the real "real money", then he very likely committed fraud.
 
Jerry said:
Except that it wasn't legal at all, and he was convicted, and is in prison....
Click to expand...

The State does not have a vested interest in justice when it challenges their grip on society. Being convicted is not proof of anything. On a point of law it is clear that his intent must be to pass off the currency as legal tender. Saying explicitly that your currency is not legal tender and is just a voluntary barter currency clearly indicates that this was not the intent. Anyone looking at the side of the coin with the money amount specified would find clearly distinguishing features that demonstrate it is not government-issued currency. That side of the coin looks nothing like any government coin I can find.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom