Liberty Dollar Closes

[SteveSy]

SteveSy -- can you provide any more documentation for your assertion that the German government legally confiscated all the money, silver and gold, back in the 1930s? I'm pretty familiar with German history, and I don't remember anything of the sort. Having dates, names of the relevant laws (and, even better, the texts of the laws) would help.

And, remember that the term I'm looking for is confiscation. A law ordering that hoards of gold or silver be sold to the government isn't confiscation.

I'm not interested in diverting the topic but....Hitler was the Supreme Chancellor, then Führer, and he was given complete and utter legal authority to issue any directive, which would be considered law, of his choosing by the people. Are you asking me to find a directive from Hitler or one of his legally appointed officials ordering the confiscations?

See the "Enabling Act" of 1933. This gave him the power of law by fiat.

[Pottapaug1938]

SteveSy -- can you provide any more documentation for your assertion that the German government legally confiscated all the money, silver and gold, back in the 1930s? I'm pretty familiar with German history, and I don't remember anything of the sort. Having dates, names of the relevant laws (and, even better, the texts of the laws) would help.

And, remember that the term I'm looking for is confiscation. A law ordering that hoards of gold or silver be sold to the government isn't confiscation.

I'm not interested in diverting the topic but....Hitler was the Supreme Chancellor, then Führer, and he was given complete and utter legal authority to issue any directive, which would be considered law, of his choosing by the people. Are you asking me to find a directive from Hitler or one of his legally appointed officials ordering the confiscations?

Exactly. I'm well aware of Hitler's powere; but Hitler and his minions were very good about having what they did done "legally". There was a decree and a law for everything.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy -- can you provide any more documentation for your assertion that the German government legally confiscated all the money, silver and gold, back in the 1930s? I'm pretty familiar with German history, and I don't remember anything of the sort. Having dates, names of the relevant laws (and, even better, the texts of the laws) would help.

And, remember that the term I'm looking for is confiscation. A law ordering that hoards of gold or silver be sold to the government isn't confiscation.

I'm not interested in diverting the topic but....Hitler was the Supreme Chancellor, then Führer, and he was given complete and utter legal authority to issue any directive, which would be considered law, of his choosing by the people. Are you asking me to find a directive from Hitler or one of his legally appointed officials ordering the confiscations?

Exactly. I'm well aware of Hitler's powere; but Hitler and his minions were very good about having what they did done "legally". There was a decree and a law for everything.

Ok, let's make another thread if you want to discuss this. As I set it the enabling act gave the Reich the power to do whatever it wanted when it wanted. There was no requirement that the laws be promulgated. As far as I see it a correspondence stating a directive would have been sufficient. The onyl requirement was that it was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. Which the confisction order was as the Reich citizenship law of 25 November 1941, Part 1 pg 722.

[Demosthenes]

Stevie...

[SteveSy]

Stevie...

Sorry...I'll refrain.

[Pottapaug1938]

Ok, let's make another thread if you want to discuss this. As I set it the enabling act gave the Reich the power to do whatever it wanted when it wanted. There was no requirement that the laws be promulgated. As far as I see it a correspondence stating a directive would have been sufficient. The onyl requirement was that it was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt. Which the confisction order was as the Reich citizenship law of 25 November 1941, Part 1 pg 722.

Two observations, without further investigation. First, this is 1941, not the 1930s as you indicated earlier. Second, World War II was well underway at that point, and the German government (and others -- the Italian government for one) was looking for resources to find its war effort. At any rate, this isn't a case of a government arbitrarily deciding to take precious metals our of the monetary system (in Germany, all gold coinage ceased during World War I, and only 2 RM and 5 RM coins contained silver up through 1939, when minting ceased); and that is what makes this subject relevant to this thread.

[Pottapaug1938]

SteveSy, the law you cited couldn't be further off-topic. The Reich Citizenship Law of 1941 deprived Jews living outside Germany of any German citizenship that they might otherwise have, and ordered the confiscation of their assets in Germany. It did absolutely nothing to "Aryans"; so citing this law in an effort to advocate for a precious-metal-based currency is -- at best -- grossly inappropriate.

[GoldandSilverEagles]

SteveSy, this is actually a very black and white, open and shut case, and as such, I going to keep this v-e-r-y simple. It is a complex case, but I'm going to state the basic foundation as to why I believe he broke federal law. Inasmuch as I agree with the idea of a company wanting to inject gold and silver coins and warehouse receipts 'legal tender' into the marketplace, I believe the prosecution has a fairly simple case to prove.

You are correct, gold and silver are legal to own, to buy and sell. However, it is not legal to transform them, "mint" them, into coins with the intent of introducing them into the marketplace as 'legal tender' to compete with FRN's and coins (legal tender) of the US.

Furthermore, it is completely legal to confiscate peoples legal (private) property if said property was part of the criminal investigation. Look at people who make meth. A*lot of the crap used is legal to purchase, however, it all gets seized in a meth raid as evidence.

Now lets look at Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 5 of the Fed. Constitution...".The Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.."

Now look at the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So Congress was Constitutionally given the power to coin money and regulate it's value. I'm not being redundant, I'm establishing foundation. Since that power was delegated to them by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment tells us that, by reasonable deduction, the power to coin money and to regulate it's value is not within the hands of "we the people".

"We the people", do not have the authority to coin money (legal tender), nor to regulate it's value, and simply put, that is why what Von Not Haus was doing is legally wrong. His **intent** was to put it into the marketplace as an alternative legal tender. The same goes for his warehouse receipts. It matters not how much they do or do not resemble FRN's. IMO that is immaterial.

BTW, you may disagree all you like, however that does not give you license to insult me for having a difference of opinion. I am not insulting your POV. Let's leave the insults out of the debate Steve.

If the dude truly wanted to promote silver and gold based legal tender, he should have focused his efforts on promoting Gold and Silver Eagles, but then, he probably wouldn't have be able to make as much doing it that way. The word greed now comes to mind.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy, this is actually a very black and white, open and shut case, and as such, I going to keep this v-e-r-y simple. It is a complex case, but I'm going to state the basic foundation as to why I believe he broke federal law. Inasmuch as I agree with the idea of a company wanting to inject gold and silver coins and warehouse receipts 'legal tender' into the marketplace, I believe the prosecution has a fairly simple case to prove.

You are correct, gold and silver are legal to own, to buy and sell. However, it is not legal to transform them, "mint" them, into coins with the intent of introducing them into the marketplace as 'legal tender' to compete with FRN's and coins (legal tender) of the US.

Let's stop there because the entire premise of your argument is based on the fact that he was promoting his minted coins as legal tender. What evidence do you have to suggest this?

Furthermore, it is completely legal to confiscate peoples legal (private) property if said property was part of the criminal investigation. Look at people who make meth. A*lot of the crap used is legal to purchase, however, it all gets seized in a meth raid as evidence.

Meth is illegal unminted gold and silver bullion purchased or acquired legally isn't.

Now lets look at Art 1 Sec 8 Cl 5 of the Fed. Constitution...".The Congress shall have power...To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures.."

Now look at the Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So Congress was Constitutionally given the power to coin money and regulate it's value. I'm not being redundant, I'm establishing foundation. Since that power was delegated to them by the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment tells us that, by reasonable deduction, the power to coin money and to regulate it's value is not within the hands of "we the people".

Kind of right. They do have the constitutional power to coin money and regulate their money. However the constitution does not say no one else can coin money. More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so. Also, banks issued money for years prior to federal regulation and no one looked twice. Are you suggesting all of those banks or counties acted illegally for over a century?

"We the people", do not have the authority to coin money (legal tender), nor to regulate it's value, and simply put, that is why what Von Not Haus was doing is legally wrong. His **intent** was to put it into the marketplace as an alternative legal tender. The same goes for his warehouse receipts. It matters not how much they do or do not resemble FRN's. IMO that is immaterial.

Legal tender is just short for saying the government can create a law making its money legal tender for all debts. It can't make its money the only money legal for all debts. Again, the constitution clearly states this by stating State's must use only gold and silver in use of coins for debts.

BTW, you may disagree all you like, however that does not give you license to insult me for having a difference of opinion. I am not insulting your POV. Let's leave the insults out of the debate Steve.

I don't believe I insulted you....I just said you would need to be checked for retardation IF you believe LD's are counterfeit U.S. backed currency. Meaning they even look remotely the same. I stand by that because I know you are smarter than that.

[Pottapaug1938]

SteveSy: " More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so."

More accurately, it explicitly states that they cannot. Look at Article I, Section 10.

[SteveSy]

SteveSy: " More importantly the constitution clearly states State's can coin gold and silver so its obvious congress does not possess the sole authority to do so."

More accurately, it explicitly states that they cannot. Look at Article I, Section 10.

You are obviously reading it wrong....it does not say that in Article 1, Section 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

They can not just coin money...but they can coin gold and silver for payment of debts. Which is exactly the same power congress has. "For all debts public and private"

Regardless it wasn't until just recently the government decided the constitution allows them and only them the power to mint money. History is filled with examples of States, Counties and Banks issuing minted money and no one ever looked twice at the bogus sole power the government claims it now has. The word "exclusive" does not appear under Article 1 section 8. When the federal government has "exclusive" power the constitution clearly states so.

[Pottapaug1938]

You are obviously reading it wrong....it does not say that in Article 1, Section 10.

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

They can not just coin money...but they can coin gold and silver for payment of debts.

Regardless it wasn't until just recently the government decided the constitution allows them and only them to mint money. History is filled with examples of States, Counties and Banks issuing minted money and no one ever looked twice at the bogus sole power the government claims it now has. The word "exclusive" does not appear under Article 1 section 8. When the federal government has "exclusive" power the constitution clearly states so.

Steve, Steve, Steve.... if the Constitution says that the states cannot coin money, how on earth can a state then coin gold and silver for payment of debts? Reread your own post -- the only mention of gold or silver is in the clause saying that states cannot make anything else a legal tender in payment of debts. Since Congress, under Section 8 of the same article, gives Congress sole power to coin money and regulate its value, this clause in Section 10 is now essentially meaningless -- otherwise, it would give states power to override Congress's authority to regulate the value of money.

[Pottapaug1938]

I also wouldn't hold up "broken bank notes" as a positive example. They are called by that name for a reason; and even while they circulated, they often did so at a significant discount, since the receiver of such a bank note had way of verifying if the promise to pay was still valid, except by reading articles in a newspaper (I've seen examples) which warn that a certain bank was insolvent -- which was of no help to anyone who accepted that bank's bank notes before that point.

Just imagine Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff forming a bank and issuing bank notes....

[SteveSy]

Steve, Steve, Steve.... if the Constitution says that the states cannot coin money, how on earth can a state then coin gold and silver for payment of debts? Reread your own post -- the only mention of gold or silver is in the clause saying that states cannot make anything else a legal tender in payment of debts. Since Congress, under Section 8 of the same article, gives Congress sole power to coin money and regulate its value, this clause in Section 10 is now essentially meaningless -- otherwise, it would give states power to override Congress's authority to regulate the value of money.

So the founders made a clause then amended it when they first signed it? I guess they wrote 8 kniowing 10 was going to come next and realized 8 would override 10. Lol....dude, come on. Use your head a little.

[SteveSy]

I also wouldn't hold up "broken bank notes" as a positive example. They are called by that name for a reason; and even while they circulated, they often did so at a significant discount, since the receiver of such a bank note had way of verifying if the promise to pay was still valid, except by reading articles in a newspaper (I've seen examples) which warn that a certain bank was insolvent -- which was of no help to anyone who accepted that bank's bank notes before that point.

Just imagine Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff forming a bank and issuing bank notes....

Regardless private banks issued money for over a century without anyone saying anything. You know why? Because it was perfectly legal to do so and it still is.

[Pottapaug1938]

I also wouldn't hold up "broken bank notes" as a positive example. They are called by that name for a reason; and even while they circulated, they often did so at a significant discount, since the receiver of such a bank note had way of verifying if the promise to pay was still valid, except by reading articles in a newspaper (I've seen examples) which warn that a certain bank was insolvent -- which was of no help to anyone who accepted that bank's bank notes before that point.

Just imagine Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff forming a bank and issuing bank notes....

Regardless private banks issued money for over a century without anyone saying anything. You know why? Because it was perfectly legal to do so and it still is.

That point is debatable. Certainly they might theoretically be allowed to ISSUE bank notes; but whether or not they would be LEGAL TENDER is another issue entirely.

[Pottapaug1938]

Since the Coinage Act of 1965 updated, among other things, the definition of legal tender, and did not mention private-issue banknotes, I would even argue that private bank notes would not be legal for use in trade, except perhaps with the issuer (much like Disney Dollars are usable in certain specified Disney properties, and can be exchanged for US currency on demand).

[Brother Dave]

Hitler liked to drink beer. Anyone who likes to drink beer today must be as bad as Hitler.

I don't drink beer. You know who else doesn't drink beer? That's right, dead people.

[SteveSy]

I also wouldn't hold up "broken bank notes" as a positive example. They are called by that name for a reason; and even while they circulated, they often did so at a significant discount, since the receiver of such a bank note had way of verifying if the promise to pay was still valid, except by reading articles in a newspaper (I've seen examples) which warn that a certain bank was insolvent -- which was of no help to anyone who accepted that bank's bank notes before that point.

Just imagine Charles Ponzi or Bernie Madoff forming a bank and issuing bank notes....

Regardless private banks issued money for over a century without anyone saying anything. You know why? Because it was perfectly legal to do so and it still is.

That point is debatable. Certainly they might theoretically be allowed to ISSUE bank notes; but whether or not they would be LEGAL TENDER is another issue entirely.

You're right, now please show where there is evidence Nothaus was promoting his notes or coins as "legal tender". The entire point of his money was to not be "legal tender", his money was the antitheses of government money.

[SteveSy]

Hitler liked to drink beer. Anyone who likes to drink beer today must be as bad as Hitler.

I never claimed the U.S. government was bad as Hitler or that they were even remotely like him. I was simply demonstrating that a government can declare confiscation legal that doesn't make it any less theft. Everyone on here attempts to justify the conclusion by assuming the validity of the premise. It's circular reasoning at its best. Germany just happens to be used a lot because a lot of examples of wrong doing can be found in that era, all of which were justified by the people doing it. They too were elected and legally appointed, and what they did was declared legal by them. The government could pass a law redefining rape allowing forced sex of citizens by officials, that doesn't make it any less rape. To use only the government issued "law" as your compass to justify the validity of acts produces a slue of logical conundrums you must face and deal with.

There has to be more than just government "law" to identify what is right and wrong or what something is or isn't.