Liberty Dollar Update

[The Operative]

If you had a slew of $10 libby's you would have made a profit, its at $13.00. No one was forced to buy these things. You guys make such a big deal out of it. Why not pick on one of those credit card companies that let you spend $10,000 and then charge you $11,000 in interest over 33 years if you make minimum payments.

You are comparing apples and oranges Steve. The idea of the libby was to be a currency and spend it. As has been pointed out before, if a person wanted an investment, there were plenty of better options. Credit cards, on the other hand, are loaning money a person does not have yet which is significantly different than libbies. Additionally, credit cards are a legal alternative and are at least somewhat regulated. Libbies are neither. What about the people that bought $50 libbies when silver was around $18 to $20 an ounce? Those people paid probably more than $40 for an ounce of silver and now silver is at $13. That is even worse than your gift card example.

Why not pick on one of those Visa gift cards that charge you a monthly maintenance fee of $2.50. If the DOJ hadn't stole all of the precious metals that backed the libby you would have been much better off holding on to a libby than one of those Visa gift cards over time.

btw, please don't come back and say "well, if you just purchased the silver instead of the libby backed by silver you would have made more money." Well, if you handed someone a $100 instead of one of those gift cards that the didn't use for a couple of years they too would have had more money.

We don't pick on the Visa give cards, because they are known to be legal. The idea of gift cards is to use them. Fees and expiration dates are meant to encourage people to use them early.

Bernard makes a big deal about libbies being inflation proof. Too bad his currency has lost 74% of its face value in five months.

[SteveSy]

We don't pick on the Visa give cards, because they are known to be legal. The idea of gift cards is to use them. Fees and expiration dates are meant to encourage people to use them early.

They're not to different. Both represent an exchange value. Only a retard would think they look like federal reserve notes.

Bernard makes a big deal about libbies being inflation proof. Too bad his currency has lost 74% of its face value in five months.

That's not very fair...The government took all the metal that backed the private currency. Even if he is found to have done nothing wrong they accomplished the mission. I'm still trying to figure out why they needed to seize ALL of the metal if their only intention was to gather evidence.

[SteveSy]

If you had a slew of $10 libby's you would have made a profit, its at $13.00. No one was forced to buy these things. You guys make such a big deal out of it. Why not pick on one of those credit card companies that let you spend $10,000 and then charge you $11,000 in interest over 33 years if you make minimum payments.

You are comparing apples and oranges Steve. The idea of the libby was to be a currency and spend it.

So the idea of a gift card with $100 written on it is not to spend it like a currency?

As has been pointed out before, if a person wanted an investment, there were plenty of better options. Credit cards, on the other hand, are loaning money a person does not have yet which is significantly different than libbies. Additionally, credit cards are a legal alternative and are at least somewhat regulated. Libbies are neither. What about the people that bought $50 libbies when silver was around $18 to $20 an ounce? Those people paid probably more than $40 for an ounce of silver and now silver is at $13. That is even worse than your gift card example.

Libbys were not an investment, at least not in the respect of buying ounces of precious metals. Its purpose was to have a protected currency. Libbys would never lose as much value as federal reserve notes, well except when the government seizes all of the precious metal that backed the Libbys.

We don't pick on the Visa give cards, because they are known to be legal. The idea of gift cards is to use them. Fees and expiration dates are meant to encourage people to use them early.

In substance they are exactly them same IMO. Both are used to purchase stuff with and both represent a private currency. btw, when has any court found that the libbys are illegal?

Bernard makes a big deal about libbies being inflation proof. Too bad his currency has lost 74% of its face value in five months.

[/quote]
Come on that's just lame....the government stole all of the precious metals that backed them.

[SteveSy]

Until I see an inventory of the precious metals seized by the Federal government when they raided von NotHaus, we only have von NotHaus' word that he even had a sizeable cache of gold, silver and platinum.

Ummm, from what I've seen he was audited by a private firm. I have no idea if he had enough or not, until I see the government say he didn't have enough then I'll assume he did. I'm sure the government would have loved to spew that propaganda all over the place if it were true.

Also, would need to produce the receipts that show his purchase of the raw materials (which could then be verified or denied by the seller).

Do you ask that of your Visa gift card vendor? Hey Visa I want you o show me you actually have enough cash in the bank to back all of these cards you're issuing with X amount of exchange value.

If the two match up, so be it. If not, I would suspect one of the parties of being a bald-faced liar, a fraud and a scm artist and I would suspect von NotHaus himself.

Of course you always assume the worst when it concerns the government implying something. I would suspect the government is the scam artist and seized all of his stores of metal to destroy the libby knowing full well what he was doing was perfectly legal.

The Liberty Dollar and related precious metal items, is a horrendous choice if you wish to hold physical precious metals and his private currency "scheme" is even worse as it is backed only by von NotHaus' word that he has the gold, silver and platinuim to back up the receipt in a storage facility somewhere.

Whatever...he had the stores audited.

His stuff is strictly for rubes, hicks, suckers, idiots, morons, low-browed knuckle-draggers, and the gullible.

I would say the same about Federal reserve notes, the difference being we are forced to take them and use them. The federal reserve note has lost over 90% of their value since they were first created. You would have been much, much better off using inflated libby dollars if they had been created around the same time.

[Burzmali]

Actually, bills from the first batch of dollars printed would be extremely valuable today.

[The Operative]

Bernard makes a big deal about libbies being inflation proof. Too bad his currency has lost 74% of its face value in five months.

Come on that's just lame....the government stole all of the precious metals that backed them.

Nothing lame about it. The libbie coins were supposed to contain the silver. Only the warehouse receipts were supposed to backed by bullion stored in the warehouse. He makes a big deal about them being inflation proof, but his $50 silver liberty coins which he started selling in March are only worth $13. There is no getting around that fact.

[The Operative]

That's not very fair...The government took all the metal that backed the private currency. Even if he is found to have done nothing wrong they accomplished the mission. I'm still trying to figure out why they needed to seize ALL of the metal if their only intention was to gather evidence.

If law enforcement was investigating a counterfeiting operation, do they only seize a portion of the bills at a location? No. If law enforcement was investigating a drug operation, do they only seize a few ounces of drugs? Of course not. When law enforcement is investigating what they believe is a crime, they take all evidence that they believe is associated with that alleged crime.

[webhick]

I feel the need to point out that there has been some speculation here about the validity of the audits. Including the issue that the person who did the audit does not appear to exist at the specified firm.

http://quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.p ... dit#p24898

[The Operative]

If you had a slew of $10 libby's you would have made a profit, its at $13.00. No one was forced to buy these things. You guys make such a big deal out of it. Why not pick on one of those credit card companies that let you spend $10,000 and then charge you $11,000 in interest over 33 years if you make minimum payments.

You are comparing apples and oranges Steve. The idea of the libby was to be a currency and spend it.

So the idea of a gift card with $100 written on it is not to spend it like a currency?

No, the idea of a gift card is to spend it like currency. LOOK AT WHAT YOU WROTE. I made it bold for you. $10 libbies haven't been sold for more than two years. The only way a person would be looking at a profit with libbies is if they had BOUGHT AND HELD the libbies.

As has been pointed out before, if a person wanted an investment, there were plenty of better options. Credit cards, on the other hand, are loaning money a person does not have yet which is significantly different than libbies. Additionally, credit cards are a legal alternative and are at least somewhat regulated. Libbies are neither. What about the people that bought $50 libbies when silver was around $18 to $20 an ounce? Those people paid probably more than $40 for an ounce of silver and now silver is at $13. That is even worse than your gift card example.

Libbys were not an investment, at least not in the respect of buying ounces of precious metals. Its purpose was to have a protected currency. Libbys would never lose as much value as federal reserve notes, well except when the government seizes all of the precious metal that backed the Libbys.

Yet they have lost value. Even if the government hadn't seized the metal stored by Norfed. The only ones that haven't lost value are ones purchased more than two years ago. Again, if a person wanted to HOLD silver, they should have bought silver bullion coins instead of libbies. Also, the seizure of the metal has no effect on the coins, only on the warehouse receipts.

We don't pick on the Visa give cards, because they are known to be legal. The idea of gift cards is to use them. Fees and expiration dates are meant to encourage people to use them early.

In substance they are exactly them same IMO. Both are used to purchase stuff with and both represent a private currency. btw, when has any court found that the libbys are illegal?

There hasn't been a court that has found libbies to be illegal. READ WHAT I WROTE. I said that gift cards and credit cards are KNOWN TO BE LEGAL. There is some question as to whether libbies are legal.

[Joey Smith]

No one was forced to buy these things.

Agreed, but it's just funny how these suckers once again get scammed. It's sort of like somebody who keeps falling for the Nigerian scam. After the first time, you quit feeling sympathy for them and start laughing at their stupidity.

By and large, the people dumb enough to buy Liberty Dollars don't have the proverbial pot to piss in, and will soon be trying to trade their Liberty Dollars for packs of smokes, or front-section tickets at the pro wrasslin' extravaganza.

[SteveSy]

That's not very fair...The government took all the metal that backed the private currency. Even if he is found to have done nothing wrong they accomplished the mission. I'm still trying to figure out why they needed to seize ALL of the metal if their only intention was to gather evidence.

If law enforcement was investigating a counterfeiting operation, do they only seize a portion of the bills at a location? No. If law enforcement was investigating a drug operation, do they only seize a few ounces of drugs? Of course not. When law enforcement is investigating what they believe is a crime, they take all evidence that they believe is associated with that alleged crime.

I hereby call a red herring alert!

Was Norfed charged with counterfeiting? Was the silver, gold and platinum that backed the paper notes counterfeited or identified as illegal? Were there accusations that the metals were acquired illegally?

The only thing was was possibly illegal was the notes themselves and possibly the private minted coins. The actual metals that backed the notes had nothing to do with the crime of minting a "currency" and it wasn't the property of Norfed it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts.

[cynicalflyer]

I hereby call a red herring alert!

Was Norfed charged with counterfeiting? Was the silver, gold and platinum that backed the paper notes counterfeited or identified as illegal? Were there accusations that the metals were acquired illegally?

The only thing was was possibly illegal was the notes themselves and possibly the private minted coins. The actual metals that backed the notes had nothing to do with the crime of minting a "currency" and it wasn't the property of Norfed it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts.

To date, that I am aware, no one has been charged with anything. However...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02267.html

In the affidavit [for the search warrant on NotHaus], an FBI special agent states that he is investigating Norfed for federal violations including "uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal," "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

So yeah, the metal is relevant to the 18 U.S.C. 486 charge "Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal". Also, if they are going to press the money laundering aspect I would imagine if as you put it "it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts" then there may be an effort to press charges that NotHaus helped launder the money for others through NORFED.

Finally, it does not matter whose property it was if it was found on site it was within the scope of the warrant.

[The Operative]

That's not very fair...The government took all the metal that backed the private currency. Even if he is found to have done nothing wrong they accomplished the mission. I'm still trying to figure out why they needed to seize ALL of the metal if their only intention was to gather evidence.

If law enforcement was investigating a counterfeiting operation, do they only seize a portion of the bills at a location? No. If law enforcement was investigating a drug operation, do they only seize a few ounces of drugs? Of course not. When law enforcement is investigating what they believe is a crime, they take all evidence that they believe is associated with that alleged crime.

I hereby call a red herring alert!

Was Norfed charged with counterfeiting? Was the silver, gold and platinum that backed the paper notes counterfeited or identified as illegal? Were there accusations that the metals were acquired illegally?

The only thing was was possibly illegal was the notes themselves and possibly the private minted coins. The actual metals that backed the notes had nothing to do with the crime of minting a "currency" and it wasn't the property of Norfed it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts.

The only red herring is your inability to read. I did not say that Norfed was charged with counterfeiting. I was giving a counterfeiting crime as AN EXAMPLE. Read the last sentence of what I wrote. I made it bold especially for you.

[Paul]

Hey, go easy on Stevesy! When I read your post, I honestly thought you meant the ebil gubbermint was accusing them of smoking the gold!

[SteveSy]

I hereby call a red herring alert!

Was Norfed charged with counterfeiting? Was the silver, gold and platinum that backed the paper notes counterfeited or identified as illegal? Were there accusations that the metals were acquired illegally?

The only thing was was possibly illegal was the notes themselves and possibly the private minted coins. The actual metals that backed the notes had nothing to do with the crime of minting a "currency" and it wasn't the property of Norfed it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts.

The only red herring is your inability to read. I did not say that Norfed was charged with counterfeiting. I was giving a counterfeiting crime as AN EXAMPLE. Read the last sentence of what I wrote. I made it bold especially for you.

Counterfeiting is not even remotely the same as what Norfed did. Of course they would take all the drugs and counterfeit money in those crimes, those items are illegal. Gold and silver bullion isn't illegal nor was it acquired illegally. The only thing that may be illegal are the notes and the minted coins not the bullion used to back it. Besides the bullion wasn't even Norfed's it was the certificate holders property. The government knew if they seized all of the backing for the currency it was dead. Now they can sit on it forever, while the pitifully slow wheels of justice turn ,and the currency regardless if its legal or not is dead, end of story.

[fortinbras]

NORFED's offense is violating 18 USC §486, "Uttering coins of gold, silver or other metal." This section prohibits stamping out coins for use as currency, even if not resembling existing US coins but "of original design." This section is found in chapter 25 of Title 18, which is devoted to "Counterfeiting and Forgery."

Additionally, since the NORFED "Liberty" made use of the image of "Walking Liberty" image that had been used on silver dollars a century ago, it could be argued that NORFED also violated 18 USC §489, "Making or possessing likeness of coins" which forbids making any coin, token or disk "in the likeness or similitude as to design, color, or the inscription thereon of any of the coins of the United States." The section also found in chapter 25.

[The Operative]

I hereby call a red herring alert!

Was Norfed charged with counterfeiting? Was the silver, gold and platinum that backed the paper notes counterfeited or identified as illegal? Were there accusations that the metals were acquired illegally?

The only thing was was possibly illegal was the notes themselves and possibly the private minted coins. The actual metals that backed the notes had nothing to do with the crime of minting a "currency" and it wasn't the property of Norfed it was the property of those holding the Warehouse Receipts.

The only red herring is your inability to read. I did not say that Norfed was charged with counterfeiting. I was giving a counterfeiting crime as AN EXAMPLE. Read the last sentence of what I wrote. I made it bold especially for you.

Counterfeiting is not even remotely the same as what Norfed did. Of course they would take all the drugs and counterfeit money in those crimes, those items are illegal. Gold and silver bullion isn't illegal nor was it acquired illegally. The only thing that may be illegal are the notes and the minted coins not the bullion used to back it. Besides the bullion wasn't even Norfed's it was the certificate holders property. The government knew if they seized all of the backing for the currency it was dead. Now they can sit on it forever, while the pitifully slow wheels of justice turn ,and the currency regardless if its legal or not is dead, end of story.

So, by your reasoning, police shouldn't confiscate the over-the-counter medications and common chemicals used in methamphetamine production, only the produced meth? After all, the over-the-counter medications and common chemicals are perfectly legal to own. However, since they are being used in the furtherance of suspected criminal activity, they should be confiscated. That is exactly what the feds did. They confiscated material that they BELIEVE was being used in the furtherance of SUSPECTED criminal activity.

[SteveSy]

So, by your reasoning, police shouldn't confiscate the over-the-counter medications and common chemicals used in methamphetamine production, only the produced meth? After all, the over-the-counter medications and common chemicals are perfectly legal to own. However, since they are being used in the furtherance of suspected criminal activity, they should be confiscated. That is exactly what the feds did. They confiscated material that they BELIEVE was being used in the furtherance of SUSPECTED criminal activity.

Well at least thats a little closer.

IMO its no different than seizing all the tenants storage items when a storage facility is being accused of operating without a license. They should at least let the people have their bullion.

You guys make such a big deal out of this and all it was is a bunch of people trading certificates. Yes one person might have tried to convince a store clerk that it was legal tender U.S. currency but that's not reason to shut down the entire operation. The bills and coins clearly do not look like U.S. currency. People use Visa gift cards all the time, they too represent privately held currency. While you say Visa cards are legal in substance they're really no different than what Norfed was doing except one is in digital form and the other is minted.

It was just too easy and convenient to seize all of the bullion to shut Norfed down. They don't even have to prove he did something illegal now, Norfed is dead and they knew it would be.

[The Observer]

You guys make such a big deal out of this and all it was is a bunch of people trading certificates. Yes one person might have tried to convince a store clerk that it was legal tender U.S. currency but that's not reason to shut down the entire operation.

And you are conveniently leaving out the part where Norfed had actively encouraged their "customers" to circulate the Libbies as an alternate currency.

The bills and coins clearly do not look like U.S. currency.

And why is that significant? Are you overlooking again the fact that Norfed was pushing Libbies as an alternate currency?

People use Visa gift cards all the time, they too represent privately held currency. While you say Visa cards are legal in substance they're really no different than what Norfed was doing except one is in digital form and the other is minted.

The difference is that the merchant, upon receipt of a Visa gift card, is going to be able to get immediate and full reimbursement of FRNs in their bank account for the amount of the original transaction. The merchant who accepts a Libby has no guarantee that he or she can do anything with the coin - no guarantee that their bank will exchange the coin for FRNs, no guarantee that they will be able to use the coin to purchase supplies, no guarantee that their vendors or employees will accept the coin, and no guarantee that the silver in the coin will retain the value for which they originally accepted.

It was just too easy and convenient to seize all of the bullion to shut Norfed down. They don't even have to prove he did something illegal now, Norfed is dead and they knew it would be.

As it should be - it was a scheme to sell bullion to people who normally would have not invested in a volatile commodity due to their lack of experience and familarity with dealing in precious metals. Norfed was dead on arrival, and the goverment just prevented a bunch of victims from purchasing its carcass.

[cynicalflyer]

Well at least thats a little closer.

IMO its no different than seizing all the tenants storage items when a storage facility is being accused of operating without a license. They should at least let the people have their bullion.

You guys make such a big deal out of this and all it was is a bunch of people trading certificates.

...

It was just too easy and convenient to seize all of the bullion to shut Norfed down. They don't even have to prove he did something illegal now, Norfed is dead and they knew it would be.

Steve, I will assume you did not read the list of potential charges I posted earlier back here

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2866&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p45100

But, at the risk of repeating myself...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02267.html

In the affidavit [for the search warrant on NotHaus], an FBI special agent states that he is investigating Norfed for federal violations including "uttering coins of gold, silver, or other metal," "making or possessing likeness of coins," mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering and conspiracy.

Steve: If the charge is money laundering, the method (Liberty Dollar conversions) and means (i.e. the bullion) would be THE critical pieces of evidence.

You only want to focus on the "uttering coins" and making/possessing likeness of coins charges. The (albeit at this point potential) prosecution is looking at other crimes.

Moreover, the bullion could be evidence as to the "uttering coins" and making/possessing likeness of coins charges if the metal itself would be used to "utter" or make them. This is less likely, more probable is that they metal is as I noted the method/means of a money laundering charge.