Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Defendant Convicted of Minting His Own Currency

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Now it is “domestic terrorism”!!






The leader of a group that marketed a fake currency called Liberty Dollars in the Asheville area and elsewhere has been found guilty by a federal jury of conspiracy against the government in a case of “domestic terrorism.”


Source




“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”


I am telling you, soon kindergartners will be arrested for terrorism because they spoke the wrong word at the wrong time or said the word "gun".
edit on 20-3-2011 by RedPill because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
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.


I did. You just have to read it. Take it one word at a time, you will get through it.



Originally posted by Xcathdra
Sadly, the circular argument technique you are using seems to be a favorite among people on this site.


I'm only doing it because you are. That's how it works. But see, at least I can admit I am doing it. You will be in denial. Until you actually want to debate facts instead of assuming your opinion of a situation is the fact, then this is how our responses to each other will be.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Reading really isn't your strong point is it.


You let me down. I expected something from you and you could not provide it. In a court of law - which you are so fond of, as you have made clear - you would be ass out for not providing evidence that you were expected to provide. Shame on you for failing to prove your point and succeeding in proving mine.


Originally posted by quackers
Obviously not


Obviously I have. Obviously I am the more informed individual out of the two of us on the context of the Constitution since you continue to fail to prove your point. If you put up an effort to make a logical argument I am sure you might start to get close to making sense. But continuing this charade isn't helping you.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by PETROLCOIN
 


Bingo. The Feds were terrified that people would dump their worthless paper for a currency backed up by something of value.

Could yo imagine what would have happened if people only used FRN to pay taxes with and merchants refused to accept FRN but would liberty dollars? The ponzi scheme would collapse and they can't have that now can they?
They are parasites that don't care if they kill the host.



posted on Mar, 20 2011 @ 11:26 PM
link   
he should have stamped "exchange credit silver .999999" on the coins in whatever the amounts of value were...5,10,20,and so on.

"only in We do we trust" and "survival currency silver .999999" with a pictoral of Timothy mcveigh



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
You let me down. I expected something from you and you could not provide it. In a court of law - which you are so fond of, as you have made clear - you would be ass out for not providing evidence that you were expected to provide. Shame on you for failing to prove your point and succeeding in proving mine.


There is a difference between supporting a decision and understanding how a conclusion was drawn, but then I would not expect you to understand that. You keep harping on about evidence, as if I have something to prove in this argument. I do not, however the evidence you seek is present in this thread if you could be bothered to actually read.



Obviously I have. Obviously I am the more informed individual out of the two of us on the context of the Constitution since you continue to fail to prove your point. If you put up an effort to make a logical argument I am sure you might start to get close to making sense. But continuing this charade isn't helping you.


Sorry, obviously not or you would not be here crying. Instead you would be pointing out the folly of your own constitution in this matter. Of course in order for that to happen you would have to accept that I am correct and in doing so show your understanding of exactly where this man went wrong and what needs to change in order to prevent the same thing happening to others. Unfortunately your own ignorance prevents you from doing so and as long as that remains the case you will get nowhere. You are a prime example of why nothing changes.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
I did. You just have to read it. Take it one word at a time, you will get through it.


Then humor me and the rest of us by spelling out your argument, point for point, counter point for counterpoint, and cite your sources, as I have done, please.


Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
I'm only doing it because you are. That's how it works. But see, at least I can admit I am doing it. You will be in denial. Until you actually want to debate facts instead of assuming your opinion of a situation is the fact, then this is how our responses to each other will be.


and yet another circular argument... As stated above, if you are so convinced your argument is correct, support it with facts, and counter the argument that others, including myself, have made and cite your source.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Each business has the right to refuse payment for a sale even if it is so called "legal tender". Just try to buy a piece of candy at a convenience store after midnight and using a 100$ bill. You will be given 2 options, either do not make the purchase, or do not receive any change. I think most folks will choose not to make a purchase.

Having said that, it is up to the business as to whether or not it will choose to do business with a customer. If the customer offers an alternative method of payment, the business has the option to accept or refuse.




This is a bit off topic, but..


Originally posted by RedPill


I am telling you, soon kindergartners will be arrested for terrorism because they spoke the wrong word at the wrong time or said the word "gun".


It has already happened.
www.jacksonnjonline.com...



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Minting your own currency is unconsitutional


No. First of all nowhere in the constitution does it say: "Nobody but us may mint a currency" Your argument is based on this:

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;


While the congress has in fact been authorized to coin money, it clearly does not unauthorized anybody else to do so. It would be like reading this part of the constitution:

Section 5 - Membership, Rules, Journals, Adjournment

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

And then claiming journalizing what happened in congress is illegal for you and me because only the government is allowed to do it. Obviously that would be ridiculous and equally obvious is that coining your own money is perfectly allowable under the US constitution.

Minting your own money is perfectly fine under the US constitution!
edit on 21-3-2011 by civilchallenger because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frontkjemper

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN
35 other countries have the word "Dollar" in their currency and use the "$" symbol. What is the problem?


Umm... Because they're not in the U.S.? What this case goes on about isn't a copyright issue but rather one of counterfeit. Since the coins resemble the U.S. coins, they can be mistakenly used as legal tender.


Which coin do you suppose a cashier will mistake the coin for? A US silver dollar? Their face value is $1. The face value of a Liberty Dollar is $20.

I can see how someone would mistakenly believe the Liberty Dollar is a US federal mint coin. But then again I could design a piece of electronics, make it white in color, and therefore people may assume that the product was designed by Apple. And that just isn't enough to say something is an "imitation". If the style is the same but there is no comparable product then you don't have a counterfeit. All you have is a similar style and its not illegal to design a product with a similar style to another. In fact it happens all the time.

Therefore, there is no basis on which to say Liberty Dollar is imitating US federal currency! If the US mint produced a $20 1 oz coin prior to the Liberty Dollar then people just may have a point to make. But in fact there is no US coin that comes close to the design.

And one more important point: if the US federal government comes out with a slogan such as "In God We Trust" its obviously a public owned slogan and therefore I own it as much as you do. So why shouldn't I be able to use that slogan however I wish?



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wolf321
reply to post by PETROLCOIN
 


I think the work-around on the issue of minting is how the fed does not 'mint' money. They print notes, essentially IOU's, backed by the government with, now, nothing but faith. The congress created the U.S. Mint, who does mint coins under the authority of the congress.

This is how other people and cities have been able to get away with making printed money for say a town or county. They aren't minting currency, nor or they counterfeiting U.S. currency. Those people are essentially doing what the FED does by printing out promissory notes, which are usually backed by FED notes or gold/silver.

edit: When I say the FED prints, I mean the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving prints the actual paper, but it is valued from the FED. The whole thing is a bunch of hogwash. Its a big con job, but that is how they legally get away with it.


edit on 19-3-2011 by Wolf321 because: clarification


Close, but not quite correct...

The Federal Reserve Bank is allowed to produce money out of thin air, which it then LOANS to the Government - at interest! The Government pays that interest back through taxes collected.

There's no gold or silver to back it whatsoever.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
how is what this guy doing wrong he makes coins that are different looking for real dollars but on tv every night there is a company selling replicas of double eagles everything the same except the fake eagles are gold clad
at least this guys stuff was made with real silver . and why could he not mint his coins like they do gold you got that austria gold coin and krugerands usedto store gold if you don't want to buy it as a btick



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
how is what this guy doing wrong he makes coins that are different looking for real dollars but on tv every night there is a company selling replicas of double eagles everything the same except the fake eagles are gold clad
at least this guys stuff was made with real silver . and why could he not mint his coins like they do gold you got that austria gold coin and krugerands usedto store gold if you don't want to buy it as a btick



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by RedPill
 



Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” U.S. Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country,” she added. “We are determined to meet these threats through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic form of government.


President Nixon COMLETELY undermined the US dollar when he closed the silver certificate redemption window in 1971. There is nothing left to be undermined. The Liberty Dollar is simply cleaning up the mess after the Dollar was undermined by the Federal Reserve. The are the American heroes in this story, while the Federal Reserve bureaucrats responsible for its destruction very much belong behind bars for fraud and for as the FBI puts it "undermining the [formerly] legitimate currency of this country".

As always, regardless of the stupidity of the definition the US federal government uses to define terrorism, the US federal government itself fits the definition better than anybody else including (the most fictitious) Al-Qaida. The fact of the matter is that the FBI loves, kisses the ass of, and otherwise worships the people who undermine the US dollar. Sickening! While undermining a currency is not terrorism, certainly destroying someone's life because they compete with your employer is terrorism. In other words, the FBI or the ones telling them what to do are concerned competition with the dollar could reduce their own salaries. Therefore, they destroy Liberty Dollar. Its your classical mafia protection racket.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
you may hate the US financial and monetary system, its unfair and corrupt, but why do you think a 67 years old guy would possible do good with his own fake currency??? its sure will benefice other and prejudice many more, replacing a system by another...
edit on 21-3-2011 by nekomata111 because: typo



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
as if I have something to prove in this argument. I do not


Thank you for finally admitting it. You could have just said that to begin with and saved us a lot of time.



Originally posted by quackers
Sorry, obviously not or you would not be here crying.


I'm not, actually.



Originally posted by quackers
Of course in order for that to happen you would have to accept that I am correct


Oh but you aren't my friend! That's the beauty of it. And I have shown you how you are not correct. Simply because you refuse to acknowledge it for the sake of keeping your ego in tact doesn't mean I have not disproved what you have said.



posted on Mar, 21 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Then humor me and the rest of us by spelling out your argument, point for point, counter point for counterpoint, and cite your sources, as I have done, please.


I did. You can go read it if you'd like, FREE OF CHARGE! Just simply scroll over the little drop down menu underneath my avatar, go to "posts in thread", and read away!



Originally posted by Xcathdra
and yet another circular argument...


You're right about that. You did do yet another circular argument by responding in this way. And now, so am I. But as was previously mentioned, at least I can admit it. But I know that you know that you are doing it too. So how long are we going to keep this up?


Originally posted by Xcathdra
As stated above, if you are so convinced your argument is correct, support it with facts, and counter the argument that others, including myself, have made and cite your source.


As stated above, you can go back and read it free of charge.



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by quackers

A jury of his peers says otherwise. If he had not broken the law, he would not have been convited right? As for the constitution, freedom of the press is there, freedom of speech is there, the right to bare arms is there, but last time I checked the right to mint your own currency wasn't.


Not exactly true: He was convicted by a jury of his peers yes, but that does NOT mean he broke the law. All it means is the government prosecuters were able to make the jury THINK he broke the law.

I would be interested in knowing whether there is actually a statuate in the U.S. Code making it illegal to mint and/or circulate private currency.

As to Constitutional Rights, just because something is not a right guaranteed in the Constitution, does NOT make it illegal. And, the Federal Government has been doing everything they can to chip away at those guaranteed rights anyway.
edit on 22-3-2011 by mark-in-dallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2011 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by mark-in-dallas
I would be interested in knowing whether there is actually a statuate in the U.S. Code making it illegal to mint and/or circulate private currency.


There is, it is quoted on the wiki page for Liberty Dollars -


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.


So making coins is not illegal, but making coins that are .....intended for use as CURRENT MONEY, whether in the resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, OR OF ORIGINAL DESIGN...... is illegal.

It appears that his crime was that they were being used as currency - nto that he was "just" making them



posted on Mar, 24 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by PETROLCOIN

Oh but you aren't my friend! That's the beauty of it. And I have shown you how you are not correct. Simply because you refuse to acknowledge it for the sake of keeping your ego in tact doesn't mean I have not disproved what you have said.


You have shown nothing other than your complete inability to understand the law as it relates to this case even when it is spelled out for you in plain English. The only ego taking a battering here is your own.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join