The World Reserve Monetary Exchange is an obvious example. I just figured I'd post it again since you apparently didn't read it last timeCare to show any?
Nobody did this. Nobody instructed anybody else to do this. Rinse, repeat....passed off a "$20" coin as federal issue US Dollars
Hello? That's what they were doing....You want to barter with them - fine - just be truthfull about it.
Oh, *please* support this statement. Pretty please. Bad pun and all, but show me the money.This is really simple. The federal government is the only entity that can legally issue money at a higher face value than what the actual value of the material is.
This guy was coining $20 silver pieces. By doing that he is coining money and illegally so because the value of the particualr coin may be more or less than $20 depending on the value of silver on the open market....Add to that the fact that mr nuthouse personally advocated passing these off as actual money and you have several violations of the law.
Oh, *please* support this statement. Pretty please. Bad pun and all, but show me the money.
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.
The federal government is the only entity that can legally issue money at a higher face value than what the actual value of the material is
Not quite correct. The interpretation holds that the EXCLUSIVE right is reserved for legal tender. Anybody can mint coins and print money. The dispute centers around the difference between "legal tender" and "barter currency".The constitution has been interpreted as granting the EXCLUSIVE right to mint coins and print money as the province of the Federal Government.
Apparently you're not the only one. This legal distinction is the heart of the dispute between the government and NORFED.I must be missing the legal distinction that you are trying to make.
Is the defining clause in SS 486. The Treasury says that it includes "Voluntary Barter currency". Von Nothaus and his lawyers say otherwise. And so far the courts have been on Von Nothaus' side, which perhaps explains why he and his "co conspirators" still haven't been arrested. He's been doing this for 9 years running now and has yet to be arrested despite his flagrant nose-thumbing, suits for injunction, and even his latest class-action suit."intended for use as current money"
Oh, *please* support this statement. Pretty please. Bad pun and all, but show me the money.
Not quite correct. The interpretation holds that the EXCLUSIVE right is reserved for legal tender. Anybody can mint coins and print money. The dispute centers around the difference between "legal tender" and "barter currency".