Govt Sued Over Liberty Dollars Seizure

just to stir the pot

would you imagine that the cover story of the Government took everything is a great cover story for why you can not redeem you Liberty dollars for those worthless Federal Reserve Notes.

Golly Gee folks we would like to redeem the coins but the Government took all our funds. HUM! sounds like one of those banks in the 20's that could not return peoples deposits. HUM!
 
And why should we sue Von Nothause? He didn't steal the precious metals backing our silver certificates...the government did. The same way it did when it removed the US dollar from the gold standard. It is not the free market that failed here..it is the government.
 
Nate45
I did a whole thread on the value of the dollar and know one cared.
Click to expand...

I cared. I was happy to see that somebody made a thread on it. I didn't post mostly because I didn't get around to it.

The Federal Reserve: We put the 'CON' in eCONomy
 
stage2 said:
You keep missing my point. I don't care if the government is dragging their feet and neither should you.
Click to expand...
Why not? I care when the first amendment is trashed by McCain-Feingold, and I care when the second is trashed by closing the NFA registry. I would care if anyone housed soldiers in violation of the 3rd. I care about the effects of no-knock warrants and new technologies on the 4th amendment. Everyone seemed to care about the fifth amendment when it came to Kelo. Why wouldn't I care about the 6th amendment? The government said these coins "were being illegally marketed as government-sanctioned currency, according to the sworn affidavit of an FBI agent."

stage2 said:
The only person who should is nuthouse because he is the final and only arbiter of what is too long.
Click to expand...

So we're all entitled to our own little interpretation of the 6th amendment, and can act on it? Sweet. I think that govt shouldn't take property from innocent people. Taking property from someone is treating him like he is guilty. I think that if the government does that for a few seconds before charging the person with a crime, it's OK, but anything longer than a minute is really going to try my patience. ;) 7 months of treating these people as if they are guilty when there has been no indictment, no trial, no conviction is wrong.

brickeye said:
The 'note holders' have NO standing to sue for the return of property confiscated from someone else.

They need to go after von Nothause to pursue the return of their property.

von Nothause can then go after the feds for the return of HIS property.
Click to expand...
The topic article didn't mention the (US $) amount of loot...

A dozen people around the country filed suit in U.S. District Court in Idaho this week demanding the return of all the copper, silver, gold, and platinum coins — more than seven tons of metal in all — that the FBI and Secret Service seized in November during raids of a mint in Idaho and a strip mall storefront in Indiana.
<snip>
For the most part, the plaintiffs had possessed bearer certificates for the silver liberty dollars that were being warehoused in Couer d'Alene, Idaho, at a mint. The mint, Sunshine Minting, is one of the sites that federal agents raided.
Click to expand...

It sounds like these people bought Liberty Dollars and were storing them and they were confiscated.

I have heard that they were minting coins and then in effect selling them to non-collectors by simply asserting that they are worth twenty bucks, as printed on the coin. They're not worth twenty bucks, as noted in this thread. I have also heard that they were trying to create a fractional reserve currency, not a fully backed one. I have also heard that they were marketing this through a multi-level marketing program. Frankly, the whole thing smells pretty fishy to me. Still, I hope they get their property back if there is no proof of criminality.
 
So we're all entitled to our own little interpretation of the 6th amendment, and can act on it?
Click to expand...

Yes we are, in as much as only you (with a couple of limited exceptions) can assert your rights. If this length of time wasn't bothering Nuthouse, then who are you to complain. for all you and I know, nuthouse could be happy that an indictment hasn't been handed down yet.


Sweet. I think that govt shouldn't take property from innocent people. Taking property from someone is treating him like he is guilty. I think that if the government does that for a few seconds before charging the person with a crime, it's OK, but anything longer than a minute is really going to try my patience. 7 months of treating these people as if they are guilty when there has been no indictment, no trial, no conviction is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, if you have your own property seized then you can file to get it back at any time you wish if you feel that the government is lagging. However since this isn't you, and you have no idea of the details of this case or what the government has been up to, you are in no position to allege anything.
 
"Taking property from someone is treating him like he is guilty."

It appears to me he is guilty. You can't coin your own money and the government will confiscate it if you do.

It also appears to me that he has been lucky so far and hasn't been charged.

He can sue to try and get it all back. Unless you'd like to take your righteous anger out on the government by ponying up the money and suing on his behalf.

John
 
It appears to me he is guilty.
Click to expand...

Me too. By all means, let's lock him up! Oh, wait, we haven't had a trial.

If we don't lock people up based on appearances and allegations, why do we lock up their property?
 
for all you and I know, nuthouse could be happy that an indictment hasn't been handed down yet.
Click to expand...

I'll have to look around for one of the other articles on this topic, in which von NotHaus (a real human being) said he has repeatedly offered to surrender himself for arrest. So no, he's not happy that the government has taken this property and shut down his business without any proof of wrongdoing.

You seem to know what "cruel and unusual" meant to the Founders. What did they mean by "speedy" in the sixth amendment?
 
I'll have to look around for one of the other articles on this topic, in which von NotHaus (a real human being) said he has repeatedly offered to surrender himself for arrest. So no, he's not happy that the government has taken this property and shut down his business without any proof of wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

I have no doubt he isn't happy about losing his business. However that is a separate issue than going to trial over something that could land him in club fed.

You seem to know what "cruel and unusual" meant to the Founders. What did they mean by "speedy" in the sixth amendment?
Click to expand...

They meant that justice should be swift and if it wasn't, the person in question should get their property back via the proper process, which is happening here.
 
Point of order....

While we do have the right to a "speedy" trial, we only have the right to one after we are arrested and charged with a crime.

Since there have been no charges filed (yet) the argument of the feds not granting a speedy trial does not apply.

I, for one, feel that while the govt may take as long as they wish for an investigation (sometimes years) they should not sieze property without charging someone with a crime, directly relating to the siezed property.

Unfortunately, a few years back (the Clinton administration IIRC) the rules were changed apparently, and the police are now authorized to seize property of people under investigation, and may do so before charges are brought. I remember one bill back then allowing this, and while that one was voted down, perhaps another snuck by us, as it seems to be what the fed cops are doing, and of course they would not do anything in violation of the law.
 
And why should we sue Von Nothause? He didn't steal the precious metals backing our silver certificates...the government did.
Click to expand...

Nothause through his actions prompted the government to seize HIS assets.
They are NOT your assets.
He is holding them and has issued certificates 'backed' by HIS assets.

Nothause is the only one with standing to sue the government for the return of HIS property.

If enough 'certificate holders' sue Nothause maybe he will get off his behind and try and get HIS property back.
 
brickeyee, how do you know he is not among the plaintiffs?
Click to expand...

I have not seen the filing, but if he is he will be the only one with standing.

Most likely those filing would have made it well known if he was.

For $0.08 a page you can use Pacer to look through the filings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top