Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded—here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck."”     Robert A. Heinlein,    The Notebooks of Lazarus Long

November 15, 2007

The Violence Against Non-State Backed Currencies

by tarran

Yesterday, agents of the FBI raided the offices of NORFED and, according to an email sent by its founder, confiscated all their assets:

Dear Liberty Dollar Supporters:
I sincerely regret to inform you that about 8:00 this morning a dozen FBI and Secret Service agents raided the Liberty Dollar office in Evansville.
For approximately six hours they took all the gold, all the silver, all the platinum and almost two tons of Ron Paul Dollars that where just delivered last Friday. They also took all the files, all the computers and froze our bank accounts.
We have no money. We have no products. We have no records to even know what was ordered or what you are owed. We have nothing but the will to push forward and overcome this massive assault on our liberty and our right to have real money as defined by the US Constitution. We should not to be defrauded by the fake government money.
But to make matters worse, all the gold and silver that backs up the paper certificates and digital currency held in the vault at Sunshine Mint has also been confiscated. Even the dies for mint the Gold and Silver Libertys have been taken.
This in spite of the fact that Edmond C. Moy, the Director of the Mint, acknowledged in a letter to a US Senator that the paper certificates did not violate Section 486 and were not illegal. But the FBI and Services took all the paper currency too.
The possibility of such action was the reason the Liberty Dollar was designed so that the vast majority of the money was in specie form and in the people’s hands. Of the $20 million Liberty Dollars, only about a million is in paper or digital form.
I regret that if you are due an order. It may be some time until it will be filled… if ever… it now all depends on our actions.
Everyone who has an unfulfilled order or has digital or paper currency should band together for a class action suit and demand redemption. We cannot allow the government to steal our money! Please don’t let this happen!!! Many of you read the articles quoting the government and Federal Reserve officials that the Liberty Dollar was legal. You did nothing wrong. You are legally entitled to your property. Let us use this terrible act to band together and further our goal – to return America to a value based currency.
Please forward this important Alert… so everyone who possess or use the Liberty Dollar is aware of the situation.
Please click HERE to sign up for the class action lawsuit and get your property back!
If the above link does not work you can access the page by copying the following into your web browser. http://www.libertydollar.org/classaction/index.php
Thanks again for your support at this darkest time as the damn government and their dollar sinks to a new low.
Bernard von NotHaus
Monetary Architect

For those of you not familiar with the Liberty Dollar, the architect intended them to compete with Federal Reserve bank notes. They currency takes many forms:

  • Specie in the form of silver and gold coins,
  • Bank notes backed by gold and silver in their vaults (in other words every bank note promising redepmption by an oz worth of silver has an oz of silver sitting in their vaults)
  • Electronic or digital money, again backed by specie in their vaults

Each bank note and coin was stamped with a suggested exchange rate with U.S. dollars. This exchange rate was far higher than the value of the metal in the coins, $15.00 USD worth of silver in a coin stamped with a $20.00 exchange rate. The company bent over backward to get treasury department approval and to comply with U.S. currency laws.

So why were they raided? Brian Doherty of reason magazine reports:

I’ve seen a copy of a Nov. 9 seizure warrant on an Asheville, NC, address, not available online, claiming that Liberty Dollars at that address are forefeitable for being connected with money laundering and mail fraud. I have not read the entire 38 page warrant, nor am I 100 percent certain it is connected with the actions in Evansville today, but given that the Indianapolis FBI referred me to the U.S. Attorney in North Carolina, probably so, and that multiple raids were planned or executed re: the liberty dollar.
The warrant explains that the FBI from Aug 2005 to July 2007 were “conducting undercover operations to determine the legality of the American Liberty Dollar currency.” The warrant also notes that von NotHaus sold an undercover agent a Liberty Dollar T-shirt, and that the agent observed von NotHaus driving a 1999 Cadillac Deville. It doesn’t take a trained federal agent to connect the dots here, I suppose. In other words: What-th-what-th-What?

This came after the U.S. Mint made dark warnings that people doing business in this currency were breaking the law.

Furthermore, NORFED is not the first currency backer to be so attacked. Last December, e-gold was also raided, by agents claiming to be going after money launderers.

Is this some plot to shore up the shaky Federal Reserve system by outlawing competition? I don’t think so, namely because government economists all believe that their system is a good stable one. I truly think they believe their propaganda.

The problem is that a system of commodity currency allows someone to do business anonymously. These systems were consciously designed to preserve people’s wealth from the depradations of misguided governmental monetary policy. This protection inherently makes monitoring the flow of money more difficult for government officials. It attracts people who distrust the government, a significant number of which whose fear is based on the victimful crimes they commit. This institutional distrust, in turn, engenders a hostility in modern law-enforcement who are understandably suspicious of people who distrust them.

In the end, it is quite clear to me that it is the hostility of these law-enforcement officers which is the problem. Confusing suspicion of the state with criminal intent, they are convinced that these institutions that have criminals as customers are in fact conspiring with the criminals. So they shut them down, ruining the guilty and the innocent indiscriminately. There is nothing precluding the FBI from reviewing e-gold or Norfed’s records while the firms continue to do business. Shutting them down is as absurd as shutting down the Motel 6 down the road, because it was the preferred resting place of mobsters visiting town.

Neither Norfed nor E-gold are defrauding anyone. Their fees might be a little high, but everyone doing business with them knows what the costs are going to be up-front. The reason that they are being raided and attacked is, in the end, a political one, hostility amongst law enforcement, perhaps egged on by some of the more conventional financial institutions seeking to knee-cap competition. As such, these raids should be condemned.

Update:

Ron Paul Radio interviews von NotHaus, who claims that the FBI agent in charge told him that the Department of Justice ordered the confiscation of all assets because the currency was illegal:

http://www.ebacherville.com/cgi-bin/uploaded/FINAL-LibertyDollarNotHaus11152007.mp3

Update II:

The search & seizure warrant have been posted by NORFED:

The search warrant orders the seizure of all records, all printing equipment, computer hardware and media, devices used to manufacture the coinage and notes, and somewhat sinisterly membershiplists of all Liberty Dollar Regional Currency Officers, Liberty Dollar Associates, Merchants who have registered themselves as accepting Liberty Dollars, and any individuals that have purchased the currency.

The seizure warrant states that

American Liberty Dollar and/or Hawaii Dala currency and/or percious metals of gold, silver, copper , platinum or other substance and Unites States currency are forfeitabls to the United States under 18 USC  §  982 (a)(1) because it is property involved in, or traceable to, money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 and 1957; under 18 U.S.C. USC  §  982 (a)(3) because it is, or is traceable to, gross receipts and proceeds obtained, directly and indirectly, as a result of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Authority for this warrant is provided by 18 U.S.C. § 981(b) and 21 U.S.C. § 853(f)

This is very interesting:

18 U.S.C. §  981(b) states:

       (b)(1) Except as provided in section 985, any property subject to
forfeiture to the United States under subsection (a) may be seized
by the Attorney General and, in the case of property involved in a
violation investigated by the Secretary of the Treasury or the
United States Postal Service, the property may also be seized by
the Secretary of the Treasury or the Postal Service, respectively.
(2) Seizures pursuant to this section shall be made pursuant to a
warrant obtained in the same manner as provided for a search
warrant under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, except that
a seizure may be made without a warrant if -

        (A) a complaint for forfeiture has been filed in the United
States district court and the court issued an arrest warrant in
rem pursuant to the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and
Maritime Claims;
(B) there is probable cause to believe that the property is
subject to forfeiture and -

          (i) the seizure is made pursuant to a lawful arrest or
search; or
(ii) another exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant
requirement would apply; or

(C) the property was lawfully seized by a State or local law
enforcement agency and transferred to a Federal agency.

(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of rule 41(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, a seizure warrant may be issued
pursuant to this subsection by a judicial officer in any district
in which a forfeiture action against the property may be filed
under section 1355(b) of title 28, and may be executed in any
district in which the property is found, or transmitted to the
central authority of any foreign state for service in accordance
with any treaty or other international agreement. Any motion for
the return of property seized under this section shall be filed in
the district court in which the seizure warrant was issued or in
the district court for the district in which the property was
seized.
(4)(A) If any person is arrested or charged in a foreign country

    in connection with an offense that would give rise to the
forfeiture of property in the United States under this section or
under the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General may apply
to any Federal judge or magistrate judge in the district in which
the property is located for an ex parte order restraining the
property subject to forfeiture for not more than 30 days, except
that the time may be extended for good cause shown at a hearing
conducted in the manner provided in rule 43(e) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
(B) The application for the restraining order shall set forth the
nature and circumstances of the foreign charges and the basis for
belief that the person arrested or charged has property in the
United States that would be subject to forfeiture, and shall
contain a statement that the restraining order is needed to
preserve the availability of property for such time as is necessary
to receive evidence from the foreign country or elsewhere in
support of probable cause for the seizure of the property under
this subsection.

Now, what is interesting is that there is supposed to be a hearing, wherein a person can hear the claim and attempt to rebut it, unless:

(3) A temporary restraining order under this subsection may be entered upon application of the United States without notice or opportunity for a hearing when a complaint has not yet been filed with respect to the property, if the United States demonstrates
that there is probable cause to believe that the property with respect to which the order is sought is subject to civil forfeiture and that provision of notice will jeopardize the availability of the property for forfeiture. Such a temporary order shall expire not more than 10 days after the date on which it is entered, unless extended for good cause shown or unless the party against whom it is entered consents to an extension for a longer period. A hearing requested concerning an order entered under this paragraph shall be held at the earliest possible time and prior to the expiration of the temporary order.

while  21 U.S.C. § 853(f) permits seizure of property without a trial:

 (f) Warrant of seizure

The Government may request the issuance of a warrant authorizing
the seizure of property subject to forfeiture under this section in
the same manner as provided for a search warrant. If the court
determines that there is probable cause to believe that the
property to be seized would, in the event of conviction, be subject
to forfeiture and that an order under subsection (e) of this
section may not be sufficient to assure the availability of the
property for forfeiture, the court shall issue a warrant
authorizing the seizure of such property.

There’s only one problem – the law is one that pertains to Food and Drugs.  Obviously, NORFED is not involved in drug trafficking.

I am not a lawyer, so I could be wrong, but I seem to remember that the forfeiture process under the FDA statutes is far less burdensome to the state, and the odds are more heavily stacked against the defendant.  Is the Federal Governemnt violating its own rules by seizing property that falls under the money-laundering statutes using the process for narcotics related seizures? Doug?

It also seems to me that von NotHaus is giving some very bad legal advice.  A class action lawsuit will go nowhere – becasue the claimants will have no standing.

The laws for money-laundering related seizures permit “innocent owners” to file claims with the government.  If they jump through the right hoops, they may get their property back.  The courts will reject any class action lawsuit and instead require people to prove their claims through the regular channels.

More worryingly, the law for narcotics related seizures has no provision for innocent owners, at least that I could find.

Furthermore, the narcotics statute has this littlegem:

(k) Bar on intervention
Except as provided in subsection (n) of this section, no party
claiming an interest in property subject to forfeiture under this
section may -
(1) intervene in a trial or appeal of a criminal case involving
the forfeiture of such property under this section; or
(2) commence an action at law or equity against the United
States concerning the validity of his alleged interest in the
property subsequent to the filing of an indictment or information
alleging that the property is subject to forfeiture under this
section.

Basically, the people who own liberty dollar notes will have to petition the government for redemption of the silver, prove that they did not break the law, to have any hope of getting their money back.

The suit will be costly in time and money, and unless you are sitting on a huge pile of NORFED notes not worth your time.

I think NORFED has just been killed.  Even if the seizure is eventually found to have been unjustified under the law, and the staff be found innocent of any wrongdoing, NORFED is out of business.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/11/15/the-violence-against-non-state-backed-currencies/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

33 Comments

  1. This is a travesty of justice at the very least.

    There is nothing illegal about what these guys are doing unless the have printed or claimed the money to be legal tender or federal reserve notes which i have found no proof of, if someone has proof that this is what they claimed it would be a different story otherwise THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING ILLEGAL.

    Is this what our country is coming too? We do not have the right to barter anymore? How about this for example. Lets say i told my boss that i wished to be paid in oranges because i like oranges and lets say that the gas station owner liked oranges too and said i don’t want money i want oranges and sears or JC penny decided to keep up with the treand and decided they had to accept oranges as payments to satisfy thier customers, would the goverment then ban oranges?

    We have the right to trade with whatever we wish if someone else is willing to accept it THAT IS CALLED FREE TRADE. If i want to trade my watch for a hamburger and someone is willing to take it what business is it of you or anyone else?

    I don’t even know what to say right now i am so vexed.

    When are we going to stop this madness Ron Paul is looking more appealing every day people.

    Comment by steve — November 15, 2007 @ 4:26 pm
  2. As of July 17, 2007, anyone classified by the government (or the mainstream media?) as being “a threat to stabilization efforts in [the war on] Iraq” can and — especially in light of the recent multi-million dollar FBI/SS raid — WILL have property seized by the G-men. This is a very real threat to liberty, and here is the reason why:

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blocking_Property_of_Certain_Persons_Who_Threaten_Stabilization_Efforts_in_Iraq

    Personally, I really appreciated the way Lady Liberty had Peace inscribed in her crown with words of “Stop the War” impressed on the reverse. She was an absolutely beautiful sight to behold.

    I wonder how much clearer it has to get before America wakes up!! The Constitution is all we have left, so remind a Patriotic friend that this battle is not only one that must be fought…but also won!

    Comment by rp4Prez — November 15, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
  3. I just have one question maybe someone can explain. How is this situation different from the town of Southern Berkshire, MA that printed up its own currency in a foolish attempt to get residents to buy “locally?” Here is a <link to an ABC News report on the town. (Hopefully the link will work as I was having trouble getting it to view, which is why there is an extra bracket sign.)

    Comment by trumpetbob15 — November 15, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
  4. just have one question maybe someone can explain. How is this situation different from the town of Southern Berkshire, MA that printed up its own currency in a foolish attempt to get residents to buy “locally?

    There isn’t much difference at all except that money is backed by federal reserve notes to where the liberty dollars were backed by gold and silver.

    The barter system has always been in place and still exists today at places such as famers markets etc… if you want to trade corn for wheat you can and it is no ones business but you and the person you traded with.

    The liberty dollar was becoming a competing dollar to the federal reserve notes WHICH IS NOT ILLEGAL IN ANY WAY. I hope these people sue the fed for this illegal action they have commited.

    After this stunt i am confirmed on my vote now and it will be for RON PAUL all they way.

    Liberty is dying and i will not stand for that and if you people value your liberty i suggest you vote in the primary for RON PAUL.

    Don’t know who RON PAUL IS? I SUGGEST YOU LOOK HIM UP AT RONPAUL2008.COM OR GOOGLE HIM ON YOUTUBE.

    Comment by steve — November 15, 2007 @ 6:38 pm
  5. I lost over $25,000 worth of honestly earned after tax gold in the e-gold robbery last April. No notice, no charges, no recourse. These people are Takers. They rob, steal, kidnap, murder, lie, and torture. All the things they say are wrong for us to do, they somehow have a free pass to do to us. Give me my country back. I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any longer! Go Ron Paul.

    Comment by wavyhill — November 15, 2007 @ 6:43 pm
  6. I don’t mean to sound skeptical here, but is there any independent confirmation of this from anyone other than von NotHaus as a source? In other words, are there any reports confirming what happened that are not based on von NotHaus’ email?

    Comment by Tannim — November 15, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
  7. I’m wondering that, too, Tannim. Besides which, I’m thinking that while all this might *sound* appealing if I had more money than sense, somehow, converting my federal reserve money into something that can be confiscated by our government in this way doesn’t strike me as the smartest of moves.

    Comment by Kay — November 15, 2007 @ 7:13 pm
  8. I no longer have the link, but a few hours ago, I saw an explanation on the US Treasury site.

    Converting my federal reserve money into something that can be confiscated by our government in this way doesn’t strike me as the smartest of moves.

    As if they’re not already confiscating the wealth you have stored in FDNs?

    Comment by Jeff Molby — November 15, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
  9. As if they’re not already confiscating the wealth you have stored in FDNs?

    True, but at least what little cash I have stored is guaranteed by the federal reserve. While that may not give a lot of comfort, it’s better than investing 25K and having nothing to show for it.

    And the fact that under federal law, no one except the government may create or pass “any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money” speaks volumes to me. To try to explain it away as LD’s not being currency seems disingenuous – while I may or may not agree that the government should have a monopoly on the minting of all money, I at least have enough understanding to not try to circumvent the law at the risk of losing everything I own.

    Comment by Kay — November 15, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
  10. hmmmm,

    From what I’ve found, it looks like Liberty Dollar was shut down because its medallion strikes looked like the US Mint coins? I don’t think the silver eagle and the silver liberty look at all similar. There is no marking that the Silver Liberty is legal tender either. The gold version is even further different.

    I could believe liberty dollars in connection to fraud as a possibility, but if it’s just the government deeming that the liberty dollar is too similar. Someone is being profoundly stupid. I hope NORFED doesn’t lose too much business because of it.

    Comment by TanGeng — November 15, 2007 @ 10:19 pm
  11. This one is really nuts. It has to be somewhat politically motivated. I’ve never seen anything like this, wow.

    Mark
    DigitalMoneyWorld

    Comment by Mark Herpel — November 16, 2007 @ 5:12 am
  12. Mind posting a link to the Reason article? I can’t seem to find it on their site.

    thanks

    Comment by Isaac — November 16, 2007 @ 7:13 am
  13. Tarran,

    After reading the search warrant, the seizure warrant, and the affidavit, I don’t think there was any violation of the law here.

    Complete authority for the seizure warrant comes from Sec. 981(b). I’m not sure what the reference to Sec. 853 is about because it would seem to be unnecessary.

    As for the hearing issue, the way I read the statute is that the seizure can take place based on a warrant and probable cause, but there would have to be a hearing on the merits of the seizure within a reasonable time after that. It wouldn’t be a full trial on the merits, but one in which both sides would present brief evidence and argument.

    The issue for the court would be whether there was a reasonable probability that the government would succeed on the merits — if the answer is yes, then the property would continue to be held by the Court until a final hearing.

    At least that’s my take on it at the moment. As I note in a comment I’ll be posting to Brad’s post shortly — if the allegations in the affidavit that accompanied the warrants are true, then this looks to me like a case of massive consumer fraud.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 10:32 am
  14. Doug says “if the allegations in the affidavit that accompanied the warrants are true, then this looks to me like a case of massive consumer fraud.”

    Name one customer of Liberty Dollar who claims he was defrauded. You’re so biased against liberty, it’s unbelievable.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
  15. Drena,

    Selling someone a “$ 20 coin” that’s really only worth $ 15 is pretty close to being fradulent.

    Certainly you would agree that fraud is something that should be punished, no ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 1:26 pm
  16. Drena,

    Just because I am skeptical of people in Indiana who claim to be the “Royal Hawaiian Mint” doesn’t mean I’m biased against liberty, it means I’m skeptical of flim-flam artists.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
  17. Doug, “Selling someone a “$ 20 coin” that’s really only worth $ 15 is pretty close to being fradulent” is an incoherent statement. Things are worth what someone is willing to pay for them. If someone pays $100 for it, it is worth $100. They are selling for very high prices right now on Ebay. Worth is subjective.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
  18. Doug, so you’re also an opponent of free markets? You think people like you should decide what things are “worth” and force that value judgement on everyone else? If I buy something from someone for more than you think it’s “worth,” then I’ve been defrauded? You’re out of your mind.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
  19. Drena,

    I am commenting on the legal merits of whatever claims may exist against LD and its founders, not engaging in philosophical debates.

    I didn’t say I agreed with those laws, but those are the laws on the books.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
  20. Drena,

    Worth may be subjective, but the LD group was trying to claim that LD’s are equivalent in value to Federal Reserve Notes and that they should be accepted as such. So that people were not “buying” Liberty Dollars so much as they were acquiring a currency they would then purport to use to purchase goods and services.

    That’s entirely different.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 1:43 pm
  21. Doug, where is the “fraud?” Fraud is stealing from someone. What customer of Liberty Dollar has been stolen from?

    The Liberty Dollar can indeed to be used as money. It has been in use as money. That’s a given. I don’t see any dishonesty.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 1:54 pm
  22. Fraud is selling saying that something is worth $ 20 in silver when it’s really only worth $ 15 in silver.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 1:58 pm
  23. Doug, again, you’re being incoherent. If someone is willing to pay $20 for a piece of silver, then that’s what it’s worth.

    There are pieces silver jewelry that people are willing to pay much more for than if that were melted into a non-descript blob.

    Worth is subjective, based on any of various factors, such as beauty, exclusivity, cachet, usefulness, and so on.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 2:10 pm
  24. Drena,

    And you’re confusing commodity values with commodities as a medium of exchange.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 16, 2007 @ 2:26 pm
  25. Drena,

    Okay, so let’s say I’m a Liberty Dollar customer. I take my $20 Liberty into a store, and I tell the clerk “it’s just like real dollars, only backed by silver instead of backed by nothing.” The price on the item I’m buying is $20, so the clerk accepts it.

    Then the clerk goes to redeem the $20 Liberty for $20 USD. Or, I should say the clerk ATTEMPTS to do so, because there are very strict limits on convertability. Oh, and the clerk won’t get $20 USD, because according to the site, since it is distributed at a discount it must be redeemed with a discount.

    So let’s see, a clerk has sold me an item for $20 USD, only I gave her a $20 Liberty. She wants to redeem that $20 Liberty, but she won’t get $20 USD.

    How is that not fraudulent? How would that not be stealing from the clerk (offering “$20″ for a $20 USD item, when not actually giving her something that she can redeem for $20 USD)?

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 16, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
  26. Bob, When you could go to Dunkin Donuts and pay with a Liberty Dollar, you’re not giving any guarantee that someone else will accept that coin anymore than you’re guaranteeing that when you use government money. So there is no fraud involved whatsoever.

    And, if there’s any doubt that you can exchange the Liberty Dollar for government money, go to Ebay and see what the Ron Paul coins are selling for. They were selling for $170 each last night.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
  27. I say give Bernard von NotHaus the Nobel Peace Prize.

    Comment by Drena — November 16, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
  28. Actually, while I don’t like this either, people are legally required to take government money if offered. That’s the whole “legal tender” thing.

    So if I’m selling a car and tell someone it has 400 horsepower when it only has 300, and he agrees to buy it (based on my claim), that’s not fraud? Because that’s the same as giving someone Liberties and claiming they are of the same (market) value as USD, when von Nothaus has specifically designed them such that they are always denominated to be worth less than their face value in USD.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — November 17, 2007 @ 7:28 am
  29. “And the fact that under federal law, no one except the government may create or pass “any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money” speaks volumes to me. To try to explain it away as LD’s not being currency seems disingenuous – while I may or may not agree that the government should have a monopoly on the minting of all money, I at least have enough understanding to not try to circumvent the law at the risk of losing everything I own.”

    I wish people would actually read the constitution it would make it a lot easier to see when you are being lied to and scammed by the government.

    United States of America Constitution
    Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5
    Powers of Congress
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_8:_Powers_of_Congress

    Section 8: The Congress shall have power
    To coin money, regulate the value thereof

    There is absolutely nothing in there giving Congress the EXCLUSIVE right to coin money as is claimed in that seizure warrant.

    Comment by JGalt — November 17, 2007 @ 9:13 am
  30. FRNs aren’t used because of their commodity value which is a few
    pennies of paper, ink & government printing infrastructure.

    They are used because of legal tender laws & tradition/transition from the
    period of gold and silver money.

    There’s as much chance of convincing a clerk or small business owner
    of taking ALDs as there is in convincing them to take #10 washers.

    Whoever accepted them as this stage in the life of the ALD is bringing
    some kind of discretion to the transaction.

    Certain benefits accrue to the creators of succesful monetary products
    whether it’s the benefit the U.S. derives as the creator of world’s
    reserve currency, banks derive from creating loans above the amount
    of actual funds on hand and even Mr. Von NotHaus for creating a competing
    medium of exchange.

    Comment by recordman — November 18, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
  31. FRNs are passed daily with the words “federal reserve note” on them.. People largely think that the federal reserve is a US government operation. It is not. Reminds me of that line from “Men in Black”, that went something like, “Wait a minute, give them time to get the wrong impression.”

    Fiatt currency is a sham. It’s principal benefit in use would seem to be that it allows people to control other people. If poorer citizens look like they’re getting ahead a little, just print more money – devaluing what they have and bingo, they’re right back in their place where they “belong”.. or worse. Fiatt currency should be illegal. And the guys printing it should be in jail istead of using the IOUS of no worth in real terms to buy real things.

    Now, what is really going on here? Simple. Hard currency destabilizes fiatt currency. It is a direct threat. It’s like standing a charlatain next to a real salesman, one claiming to have a detergent that cleans while the other demonstrates that his detergent does what he claims. The real salesman puts the charlatain instantly out of business. If hard currency were allowed to gain a foothold next to “US” federal reserve currency, the fed dollars would devalue like WWII german Reich marks. Why? Because reserve notes have no intrensic worth other than the claim that they are worth something. You can’t devalue hard currency by making more of it. There is either enough in specie to back it or there is not. So long as there is, the money is worth what is says it’s worth. Period. If more is minted tomorrow, your coin/bill is still worth exactly what it was before printing. If the fed prints more FRNS tomorrow, your FRNS lose worth. So with hard currency, your currency reflects the work you put forth to earn it. With Reserve notes, your currency is worth a fraction of the number of notes circulated. If more are printed, your labor is devalued by default. You can work as hard as you want for all the raises you can accumulate, and in the end, all the fed has to do is print more bills and all your effort is rendered moot.

    Theorists would argue that it’s more complex than this; but, pinning them down largely debunks the pretense. Paul is right in wanting the fed disassembled and thrown on the ash heap. What they’ve done is nothing short of a crime and should be reviled as just that. Bottom line, this hard currency company was shut down and bullied in attempt to cow people into submission. It’s the robber barons vs. the law-abiding folk again. We need a William H. Bonnie, folks. Badly!

    Comment by Brad — November 19, 2007 @ 8:47 pm
  32. If It’s Good Enough For Mickey, Why Not For Paul?

    In an interview today, Schiff said he expects that the federal raid on the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code had added more weight to his argument for giving to the Paul campaign. “The federal government is debasing the currency and then it comes in and punishes people who are doing something to protect themselves,” he said. “The fact that these guys would come in and raid this organization shows how much they’ve got to fear from this. If more and more people start shunning the currency, it takes away from their power.”

    Comment by Daniel N Adams — November 20, 2007 @ 5:29 am
  33. [...] the term “Stockholm Syndrome.”  Why, some go so far as to suggest that good ol’ Bernie be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!  Actually, I suppose Bernie is more deserving of that singularly meritless award than Al Gore, [...]

    Pingback by Bernie Bucks by Edgar J. Steele « THE “G” BLOG @WordPress.com — December 5, 2007 @ 3:25 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML