The State does not have a vested interest in justice when it challenges their grip on society. Being convicted is not proof of anything. On a point of law it is clear that his intent must be to pass off the currency as legal tender. Saying explicitly that your currency is not legal tender and is just a voluntary barter currency clearly indicates that this was not the intent. Anyone looking at the side of the coin with the money amount specified would find clearly distinguishing features that demonstrate it is not government-issued currency. That side of the coin looks nothing like any government coin I can find.
Being convicted proves that the jury found him guilty. The state is not trusted to convict people in such cases, that's why we have jury trails. So the state petitioned the jury to convict him by presenting their case, and the defendent did the same. The jury found the state's case more convincing - as do most people who responded to this thread.
The individual labeled his coins "USA." He had no Congressional authorization to do so.
Therefore, he had no legal right to pass off his fake currency as American currency.
That the overall design of his coins and currency differed from legitimate U.S. coins/currency is not really relevant.
Furthermore, using the phrase "American Liberty Dollars" was also deceptive. After all, in 1986, the U.S. issued legitimate Liberty half-dollar and dollar (silver) and Liberty $5 (gold) coins.
I agree with the court decision. We can't have people running around creating counterfeit money. Counterfeiting money is a job that already belongs to the Fed. :mrgreen:
Well I mean it's not really counterfeiting is it? It wasn't made to be taken for US legal tender, it was made to be a metal backed currency that people could use if they wanted. In theory, I have no problem with it. I think a competing, metal backed currency isn't the worst thing in the world. But as it stands, you can't do it and the government will come after you. They do have the right to print and regulate the value of our currency, and that's well within their proper power to do. I would just also legalize 1 form of metal backed currency to use at people's discretion. You wouldn't be forced to take it, like you are US legal tender. But if people choose to use it and you want to, then I think it's ok.
Anyone who studies U.S. history can tell you that juries are perfectly capable of wrongly finding someone guilty. In this case it seems the prosecutor went out of his way to prejudice the jury against the defendant.
It's not illegal to put USA on something you produce.
It is not a fake currency, just not legal tender and he was not trying to pass it off as legal tender thus he was well within rights.
"Not really relevant"? It is of the utmost relevance when you are arguing someone's guilty of trying to pass off their alternative currency as legal tender. These coins not only differed, they differed in such a way that anyone could tell it was not government-issued currency. Consider the picture you put up for a moment. Do you think someone seeing "For the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax" is going to presume that coin is government-issued currency?
Except those government-issued coins never had the phrase "Liberty Dollars" on them like this.
Legally you certainly can do it. Now, certainly the government will come after you for it, especially if it begins seeing any notable acceptance, but that does not mean it is illegal. The only way it is illegal is if you intend for it be used as legal tender and you do not have authorization to have it used as such. In this case you have a currency that was clearly stated to be private and voluntary and not usable as legal tender so it was a legal alternative currency. Of course, things like this are a thorn in the side of the State and are not often tolerated.
Interestingly the raid on their offices occurred around the same time that Ron Paul's campaign was making serious financial and popular gains.
Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that "the jury found him guilty" they may be wrong about finding him guilty but they found him guilty. The question is: do we trust the jury? For a lot of us, we don't just trust the jury we agree with their decision after finding our own facts. You are the one who doesn't, you appear to be in the minority, your arguement is base on your belief of the defendent's intention which is contradicted by his actions, and on top of that you claim biases and prejudice for the jury which you can't proof. You are engaging is a circular arguement in which your belief takes precedent over reality - if reality contradicts your belief then reality is either bias or wrong.
Well how can he be found guilty? I agree that it's not counterfeiting because it was not meant to be taken as legal tender. However, it seems almost a certainty that there's an executive order out there which bars competing currency like this. It sounds like something the government would do.
I am more than willing to allow that an action may be illegal even while supporting it. Just like I am capable of believing an action is legal while opposing it. Here I believe it is legal and I support it. My point about prejudicing the jury was backed up by my source noting some of the things put forward as part of the prosecution's case. The T-shirt about the U.S. mint has no conceivable relevance to any aspect of the charges except to serve as a piece of information that might shape the jury into holding negative views towards the defendant. "Evidence" like that makes me wonder what else the prosecution tried to feed the jury, especially when the U.S. attorney in that area is likening it to domestic terrorism.
Any measure that seeks to prohibit a person's ability to accept and offer different forms of payment would be unconstitutional.
That may be but I'm talking about your belief that he's not guilty of the charges.
You say "my source", what source?
Interestingly the raid on their offices occurred around the same time that Ron Paul's campaign was making serious financial and popular gains.
Any measure that seeks to prohibit a person's ability to accept and offer different forms of payment would be unconstitutional.
I don't believe the raid had anything to do per se with Ron Paul's campaign.
I'm not disagreeing. I think bartering and what have you should be allowed. I just thought that there would probably be a law or executive order against competing currencies because that sounds like something the government would do.
I know what you are talking about, but it seems the unstated accusation would be that I am somehow biased in my consideration of the legal question. There is no reason for me to be biased and I make a point of objectively evaluating technical matters like this.
It was just two pages back that I posted it.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?