Defendant Convicted of Minting His Own Currency

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Precious metals should be exempt from this law - if he is making silver dollars they are worth whatever we are currently paying for silver in the US currency. He is not making a separate currency at all.

They are just giving this guy a hard time for sticking up for the free man.

Lots of people make their own silver plates and coins for purchasing here in vancouver, that does not make them a threat to the local currency but rather a safe alternative to the ebb and flow of our 'registered currency"

I hope this guy gets off - if all he was doing, was selling silver.

Blessings,

-GM




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


You might find reading the attached articles and subsequent thread helpful, perhaps.

Second line



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by incrediblelousminds
reply to post by Gradius Maximus
 


You might find reading the attached articles and subsequent thread helpful, perhaps.

Second line


Completely agree.. Its not illegal to make an item out of precious metal, even if that item is a coin, nugget, sand material etc. Its not illegal to make a coin and assign it value either.

It is illegal to make an item that mimcs US Currency, and its illegal to make an item and pass it off as being equive,ant to, or able to be used in the same manner as US currency.

If you head to Alaska and dig up 40 punds of gold, melt it down and make your coins that has your face on one side, and a ostrichj on the back side, and either sell it as nothing more than an investment tied to the gold market, or allow it to be used to buy stuff on your website, and if you won a gas station you can even accept it there.

So long as it doesn tlook like US currency, and you dont pass it off as such, your good.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I don't think most of you understand what this man set up, its not just about silver coins, it was about a man who made dollars, paper dollars, which in turn could be exchanged for precious metal.


This WAS NOT a form of currency, just a means to exchange paper for precious metals. Now here is where the story gets interesting people or so called people tried to deposit these notes into their bank accounts, cough cough and so the investigation began.

edit on 20-3-2011 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I would be more than happy to pit my education and career against yours any day of the week on this topic.


Don't you agree that you would have to know my level of education and my career in order to accurately make such a statement? Seems like common sense to me. Hence why I did not make such a stupid and arrogant statement... since I don't know your level of education and career.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
something tells me you failed at part 2 of the task, which is to understand how it works.


Something told you wrong.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
I gave you your answers, namely Article 1, section 8 and 9.


The one about tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court?



Originally posted by Xcathdra
I then directed you to Federal Statute that furthers defines how the monetary system for the US works


What you did was direct me to a clause about tribunals being inferior to the Supreme Court. What you also claimed was that in Article 1, Section 9, the word "Dollar" is used, which it is, but has absolutely nothing to do with this issue. Section 8, which is the section we are primarily discussing, does not mention the word "Dollar" once.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
As I stated, I am more than willing to hand hold yuou through the entire process, explaining each and every step


Try and learn what you are talking about before attempting to teach others.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Learn how it works correctly, or continue to be ignoprant on this topic


That's laughable. You have already demonstrated your ignorance on this topic. Oh the irony!


Originally posted by Xcathdra
As far as reading and understanding your posts, Yes, I read them and No, I have no diea where you get some of your infomration from that you use as the basis for your arguments.


My information is in that thing called the U.S. Constitution. Ever heard of it?

My point is not so much in the defense of this man, but more so pointing out the double standard. The Constitution says only the Congress can coin money. I realize the Federal Reserve does not make coins. That is not my issue. My issue is their printing of Dollars. They are not a Federal organization. They are a separate entity. Thus, they are no different than the crackhead who prints counterfeit Dollars out of his basement. Both are printing Dollars and neither are Federal entities. Thus, both are counterfeit. You can try and rationalize it all you want and make excuses for this double standard, but there is no defeating the truth.

Another one of my points - which you have failed to answer - is where in the Constitution does it say a competing currency cannot be established? Let me help you... it doesn't.

Try arguing my points rather than resorting to your ad hominem arguments, alright? Thanks.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PETROLCOIN
 


Yep I heard of it.. I took an Oath to protect and defend it with my profession, in addition to that of my state. I have pointed out the flaws in your origional post, specifically your questins about where int he Constitution does it say.....

So a few posts later, which expanded on my origional response, and you still dont get it. Please, by all means fill us in on your education and profession if you are the expert here.

I will also point out than in your responses to date, you have failed to counter any information that has been given, instead regurgitating your origional argument. If we are all so wrong, then prove it and cite your sources.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
I have pointed out the flaws in your origional post


Have you? I've yet to see a logical argument from you.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
So a few posts later, which expanded on my origional response, and you still dont get it.


Perhaps because your posts have been filled with incorrect information, as has been pointed out to you by multiple people.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
if you are the expert here.


I never claimed to be an expert. Don't take something you said and put those words in my mouth. That's pretty sad that not only can you not read my posts, you cannot even read your own. Please keep track of the words you say.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
I will also point out than in your responses to date, you have failed to counter any information that has been given


Quite the opposite. I have countered what you have said. You, however, have not countered what I have said, particularly from my most recent post. Instead you come at me with this post that I am responding to which contains absolutely no substance.


Originally posted by Xcathdra
If we are all so wrong, then prove it and cite your sources.


I didn't claim you are all wrong. I said you are wrong. There's a difference.

I did prove it and I did cite my sources. You can try to go back and read. Perhaps that will help you through this process. Although you can go back and read what I said, and respond in a later post perhaps after you have repeated yourself a few more times, I do suggest possibly reading my post the first time rather than waiting for me to remind you a few times. Just a friendly tip.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
reply to post by quackers
 


That is your response? I'll take that as you admitting that you have no logical argument against what I have said.


You're using logic? Could have fooled me. You've answered most of your own arguments and are either too stupid or too ignorant to realize. The fact you had to ask where in the constitution it states the people cannot mint their own currency, well there's the proof of my statement. You ask what this man did wrong, the answer lies within the wording of the constitution you seem to be ignorant of. He could have called his currency the Green Jellybean and he'd still be committing an offense in attempting to use it as some sort of legal tender. So, for the hard of thinking here's the short version;

Minting your own currency is unconsitutional

Now run off like a good little boy, read the constitution and if you see anything you don't like, well, change it and stop whining.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
You're using logic? Could have fooled me.


Yes I am using logic. Obviously I did fool you. Then again, that's not too difficult to do, is it?


Originally posted by quackers
The fact you had to ask where in the constitution it states the people cannot mint their own currency, well there's the proof of my statement.


My question was rhetorical. I'm sorry you can't read the content before and after to come to that conclusion. Or perhaps you just didn't read at all, sort of like the other poster? Seems to be a nasty trend.


Originally posted by quackers
You ask what this man did wrong, the answer lies within the wording of the constitution you seem to be ignorant of.


Oh wise one, please enlighten me! I would like a copy of this wording that supposedly says he cannot create his own currency. I expect it in your next post. Thanks.



Originally posted by quackers
He could have called his currency the Green Jellybean and he'd still be committing an offense in attempting to use it as some sort of legal tender.


So you're saying he is guilty of counterfeiting? That's basically what you are saying when you say he committed an offense by attempting to use it as legal tender. Does that mean I could get put in prison for 15 years for taking a piece of paper and coloring it using rainbow colors and slapping a number on it and trying to use it at the grocery store? Typically those transactions end with a simple refusal of business. Clearly you did not know that. So you learned something. You're welcome.



Originally posted by quackers
Now run off like a good little boy, read the constitution


I have. But that is good advice, and since I wouldn't want it to go to waste, I'll send it right back to you.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Oh wise one, please enlighten me! I would like a copy of this wording that supposedly says he cannot create his own currency. I expect it in your next post. Thanks.


Don't get your hopes up, I have asked for this citation no less than five times throughout this thread. Good grief.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by PETROLCOIN
 


So, your answer to my question would be No, you cannot make a counter argument to support your position, nor can you offer any information that counters / refutes the information I have provided to you.

Sadly, the circular argument technique you are using seems to be a favorite among people on this site. Have fun with it.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Oh wise one, please enlighten me! I would like a copy of this wording that supposedly says he cannot create his own currency. I expect it in your next post. Thanks.


Reading really isn't your strong point is it.



So you're saying he is guilty of counterfeiting? That's basically what you are saying when you say he committed an offense by attempting to use it as legal tender.


I'm not saying he's guilty of anything, a court of law decided that. That's their job and if you want to get bent out of shape about it take it up with them.



I have.


Obviously not, or at least your comprehension skills need a bit of refinement. Otherwise you would not still be asking why this man was convicted. It's all there in black and white, try harder.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by quackers
 


I have seen the US Codes he has been found guilty of being in violation of. However, the claims that his actions are unconstitutional are unsubstantiated. That will hopefully be decided during the appeal process.

Still waiting for that quote from the Constitution.. anybody found it yet? With regards to the topic, all I have seen are powers delegated to Congress; I have not seen in the Constitution where these actions are to be prohibited to the Citizen.
edit on 20-3-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: Rewrite, my wording was confusing. It's still a piss poor excuse of a 2nd paragraph, but i think i get my point across


Changing gears a bit, I would like to say that the FBI defining this man as a terrorist is disingenuous. AFAIK he did not cause any major disruptions to the economy or even rip anybody off.
edit on 20-3-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Oh wise one, please enlighten me! I would like a copy of this wording that supposedly says he cannot create his own currency. I expect it in your next post. Thanks.


Don't get your hopes up, I have asked for this citation no less than five times throughout this thread. Good grief.


Asked and answered... There is NO law that prevents people from making their own currency. There IS a law, multiple actually, that prevents a person from counterfeitting currency, or making currency that resembles currency in use, or passes something off as offical currency, or insinuates / suggests / infers that their homemade currency can be redeamed / traded / cashed in for legal tender.

As the article states, and has been repeated a few times now, the person was charged for violating the above issues, and NOT for making his own currency. He ran afoul when he passed his currency off to others as something more than what it was.

Ignoring that fact, and constantly asking for an answer to a question that is without foundation, doesnt make your argument valid.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The sad thing is if his coins were made with even a tiny bit of silver they are worth more than U.S. coins! Oh the humanity, when will society learn?



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia
The sad thing is if his coins were made with even a tiny bit of silver they are worth more than U.S. coins! Oh the humanity, when will society learn?


If History is to be our guide, and since we always ignore history, we wont ever learn, but will be doomed to repeat the same mistake over and over and over and over...



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thank you for finally admitting the truth about the Constitution.

According to the wiki this does not sound like a case of counterfeiting. I will certainly be watching his appeals process.
edit on 20-3-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by JohnnyTHSeed
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thank you for finally admitting the truth about the Constitution.


It was in my first post and subsequent responses. The Constitution does say who is authorized to mint offical currency, so if we want to get technical on that point we can.

Secondly, it does nothing to support your argument, so simply trying to insinuate your argument was correct by ignoring the facts, again, does not support your argument.

The guy in the article was not charged because he made his own currency. He was charged because of the manner in which he passed that currency off to other people. You seem to be doing your best to downplay / ignore these key points in a futile effort to make your case, which is wrong.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I don't have an argument as I am not versed in law. I am just trying to understand the situation. The first thing I was hearing about this case is that he violated a law laid out in the constitution. I was lead to believe this due to a citation of the constitution in the original article as well as posts in this thread.

It seems that aspect of the story is not true. There are US Codes that he is in violation of, I learned of the specific codes because of one of your posts. Unfortunately there is no evidence I can find to review. Because of that I have decided to stop caring about the subject until something new develops. Would it make sense to expect this to go to the Supreme Court?


ignore these key points in a futile effort to make your case, which is wrong.

My only case was that he is not in violation of the Constitution, but of a USC.

From the OP article..

NORFED intended for the Liberty Dollar to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with, United States currency.... It is a violation of federal law for individuals, such as von NotHaus, or organizations, such as NORFED, to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.


I take it back, I do have an argument. According to the FBI he was arrested for competing with the official coinage and currency of the United States.

edit on 20-3-2011 by JohnnyTHSeed because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyTHSeed
 


According to the wiki article the maiking of coins was not the problem - not even the language used on them.
It was the circulation of them as currency - not even necessarily as legal tender


The minting of Liberty dollars also appears to be in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 486:

Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.


and


In 2006 the U.S. Mint issued a press release stating that prosecutors at the Justice Department had determined that using Liberty Dollars as circulating money is a federal crime. The press release also stated that the "Liberty Dollars" are meant to compete with the circulating coinage (currency) of the United States and such competition consequently is a criminal act.


-en.wikipedia.org...

It does also note that the twording may have been similar and potentially confusing, but doesn't mention that being a crime.

Later on the wording of the charges in hte article is not really all that specific - they all mention "coins of resemblance and similitude of United States coins in denominations of five cents and higher".....but only in short excerpts - you need to go to the links to the specific laws to find wording such as this:


Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal, or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
- www.law.cornell.edu... (which is the same as in the wiki)

So the law in this specific charge relates to "uttering or passing" - as a layman on the law it seems to me to be about using them as currency - not merely making and possessing them.
edit on 20-3-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join