About Bernard von NotHous 1 1

[VKurtB]

At summer F.U.N., I got the chance to speak extensively with Bernie, the creator of Liberty Dollars. He donated a copy of his book about his experiences to the ANA library, and it is likely there now.

Full disclosure: I am NOT an anti-fiat-currency bug, not even a tiny little bit. Hard currency is a nasty little unproductive thing. I consider it THE proximate cause of the Great Depression’s severity.

That said, I found Bernie and his wife, thoroughly charming people with a quick sense of humor. Bernie stands right now as a convicted federal felon. He ultimately was sentenced to 3 years probation, despite the fact the Eastern District of North Carolina federal prosecutors wanted 22 YEARS of incarceration. He only served one (1) year of probation and was released from further supervision.

I am going to be helping Bernie obtain a Presidential pardon, if I can. My experience with the PA House Judiciary Committee proved to me that fancy lawyering does NOT help anyone get a pardon. A compelling narrative of injustice does. And that may mean a letter writing campaign some day soon. Can I count on my forum mates? It will take a while. I need to find the correct people at the White House to whom to write.

As I told Bernie, I am not simpatico with his hard money agenda, but I know a silly injustice when I see it. Bernie needs to be out from under this felon cloud. Please try to help. 

[VKurtB]

The whole prosecution started because some lady in Eastern NC tried to deposit her Liberty Dollars into a federally chartered bank, m-o-r-o-n. 

[RWB]

A common crook busy scamming trusting people. He was, and continues to want to, steal from others.

Von Nuthouse is in a safe place, away from the people he wants to cheat. Now, if some other notorious counterfeiters could find similar accommodation, everyone would benefit.

[Conder101]

Problem was it isn't possible to make a coin per the rules, because the rules forbid you from making "coins" intended to pass as money.  And NotHous's "coins" were intended to be used as money.  Or at least some of them were.

Applicable law Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 486

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.

NotHous was not authorized by law, he did make "coins" of gold and silver, of an original design, intended to be used as current money.  It is legal to make such item only for use within your own "sphere of influence" because then they are a token and not a coin.  

[VKurtB]

52 minutes ago, SlickCoins said:

Oh I understand now, coins vs tokens, thanks.

So then this happened, 

From my outsider view, what he was doing was border line, then what she did triggered it.

Now the picture is becoming more clear, I didn't get a chance to dig any new info up yet.

More or less, someone tried to pass a token yes?

So let's say I bought a token, even with the website stating "token", I also do the same exact thing, take it to a bank,, does that also trigger the same effect?

If the answer is yes, then obviously a rule needs changed,,, for the ones who make "tokens" are in a position of everything getting seized, being deemed a counterfeiter etc etc.

Felonies and jail time+ big fines.

Thanks all

It was not wise in his promotional literature to describe them as a superior currency.

[VKurtB]

14 hours ago, RWB said:

A common crook busy scamming trusting people. He was, and continues to want to, steal from others.

Von Nuthouse is in a safe place, away from the people he wants to cheat. Now, if some other notorious counterfeiters could find similar accommodation, everyone would benefit.

What safe place is that exactly, Roger???? He was on the floor of the bourse at Summer F.U.N. this past Saturday. And Bernie never served a single day! Or did that escape your attention, Mr. Über Researcher? Still spewing ill-informed nonsense I see, Roger. Carry on. It’s what you do. You get pretty rambunctious when there’s no federal judge around to keep YOU in line.

Edited July 13, 2021 by VKurtB

[VKurtB]

3 minutes ago, SlickCoins said:

Regardless, keywords "Superior" yes keywords count.

I'd need to see the exact names of said Superior Currencies.

More information needed:)

What else you got

Well, the Swiss Franc for one. (He ducks.)

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, SlickCoins said:

More or less, someone tried to pass a token yes?

Yes, that’s the way any RATIONAL human being would describe it. Allowances may need to be made for the fact that not all researching authors meet that standard.

[VKurtB]

25 minutes ago, SlickCoins said:

Lol that's a good thing

I think I got it, regardless what he promotes, does it say fake when you buy?

He WAS in violation of 18:25:468, but nobody cared until some doofus in North Carolina tried to deposit them. The jury convicted, but the trial judge (correctly) determined that the statute was bullsnot and gave NO prison time, for what was technically a felony. Three. Years. Probation. Later busted down to one year. Why? Because the court (correctly) determined there was no danger from him, NOR any criminal intent. As I once heard in some Broadway show: “He’s just misguided, thinks he’s important, this man is harmless so why does he upset you?” Buuuut it seems that were he in biblical Jerusalem, ol’ RWB (and Conder) would be yelling, “Crucify him!”

These guys who are counterfeiting purists (or the counterfeiting Taliban) are REALLY starting to get badly under my skin. Sorry, they just are. Patrick Heller has repeatedly preached HIS gospel that money functions should be removed from governmental control and CRYPTO DOES!!!!! Do we need to start burning the crypto weenies and modern goldbugs as heretics too? 
 

Here is the ultimate truth. Bernie never meant his pieces to co-mingle in regular commerce. That babe in NC did that. They WERE a “in his sphere” piece. But worst of all, they were intended to be a POLITICAL STATEMENT (one with which I DISAGREE, … STRONGLY) and in our system, political statements are the stinking REASON we have a First Amendment. I disagree with what Bernie was saying, but I’ll defend to the death … yadda yadda.

Edited July 13, 2021 by VKurtB

[Alex in PA.]

Oh dear.    

[VKurtB]

Here’s the best part. Liberty Dollars are legal to own, buy, and sell again. At least five dealers at summer FUN were. All confiscated pieces (the feds tried to get them all) HAVE BEEN RETURNED to their previous owners. They so way are not MY particular bag. I’m a committed Keynesian, not a stinking goldbug. There has been a tacit admission of government overreach here. That’s why the only remaining legal infirmity, a technical felony conviction, needs to be remedied by this (or the next) President. Separate your ideology from your sense of fairness, or is everyone else here incapable of that?

[Woods020]

I was completely unaware of this gentleman or Liberty dollars. So if nothing else this was good fuel for reading and learning something new. I have no dog in this fight per se, but I will give my two cents (you can choose US currency or Liberty dollars the decision is yours on which two cents). 
 

I think it would be a reach to call this man a counterfeiter. His coins are not any more convincing than any other silver round on the market, many of which copy historic designs exactly. Further his notes were nothing more than private Silver certificates no different than buying silver futures. It equates to buying silver for a current price with the promise taking possession of the silver in the future at that price. So I don’t think anyone can accuse him of counterfeiting and pass the red face test. Just another flavor of widely accepted practices. 
 

The issue, in my opinion, has more to do with how one interprets both of the following:

1. “intended for use as current money” in Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 486

2. Constitutional powers of government. 
 

Issue 1 - intended for use as current money. While his actions weren’t intended to deceive anyone with counterfeit money in my opinion, it is intended to be used as legal tinder. The following is an excerpt copied from the existing Liberty Dollar website:

”US dollar backed only by government debt is bad for everyone! That's why I created the Liberty Dollar.

If someone gave you a choice between a stack of ordinary ten-dollar bills and a stack of ten-dollar bills that were printed on the back with a coupon for 5 gallons of gasoline, good at any gas station in the country, which would you choose?

The first stack is just dollar bills. The second stack is also dollar bills, or if gas prices go up, you can use the back of the bills and fill your tank.

You'd have to be crazy to take the first stack! Right? Why not get the benefits of a negotiable currency coupled with the redeemability for a useful commodity, in this case, gasoline? If gas prices go up, you win while everyone else complains about the high cost of gas! If prices don't rise, you still have your ten-dollar bills!

On the other hand, when you hold US dollars, you own debt that you will eventually have to repay. When you give US dollars to someone as payment, they now have debt. Ouch!” 

This seemingly does point to his intent to make an alternate form of money to be used in commerce today despite his explicit comments to the contrary  

 

This now brings us to issue two - constitutional powers. Does the government have a monopoly on issuing tender for commerce?
 

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress power to "borrow money" and also power to "coin money and regulate the value" of both U.S. and foreign coins, and regulate interstate commerce, but does not explicitly and unambiguously grant Congress the power to print paper money or make it legal tender.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from issuing "bills of credit" (promissory notes) or making anything but gold and silver coin legal "tender". 

 

Many legal scholars have argued both the intent and the spirit of this legislation and how it should be applied in a multitude of ways. The judge in the NORFED case held that because the Constitution prohibits the states from issuing money, it should be inferred that the drafters also meant to forbid private parties from doing so. This is a big inference in my mind. 
 

To further complicate this I do agree with Kurt in that this should be evaluated under the same lens as crypto currency. It is also intended to replace US government tender with other instruments. Intent may differ whereby NORFEDs goal was to back specie with PMs to hedge inflation while some crypto’s have the goal of alluding oversight. 
 

In summary my opinion, and it’s just that an opinion, is:

1. He isn’t counterfeiting any more than silver rounds or silver futures are counterfeiting. 
 

2. The underlying issue is was this attempting to replace current money, and if so is that illegal or constitutionally allowed?

3. The counterfeiting charge served as a proxy for concerns over replacing current money under the relevant statute. 
 

4. While I don’t right now have my mind made up as to whether constitutionally the founders intended solely for the federal government to issue tender for commerce or not, I do think that this situation isn’t unique. If this is deemed unlawful then so should silver rounds and silver futures. I do think it is interesting that the constitution makes allowance for states to set silver and gold as tender specifically and seemingly has more concern over Un-backed notes. 
 

A very long winded way of laying out the facts needed to form an opinion, and not a firm opinion of right or wrong. Made for some good reading on the beach this morning. 

[VKurtB]

13 minutes ago, Woods020 said:

I was completely unaware of this gentleman or Liberty dollars. So if nothing else this was good fuel for reading and learning something new. I have no dog in this fight per se, but I will give my two cents (you can choose US currency or Liberty dollars the decision is yours on which two cents). 
 

I think it would be a reach to call this man a counterfeiter. His coins are not any more convincing than any other silver round on the market, many of which copy historic designs exactly. Further his notes were nothing more than private Silver certificates no different than buying silver futures. It equates to buying silver for a current price with the promise taking possession of the silver in the future at that price. So I don’t think anyone can accuse him of counterfeiting and pass the red face test. Just another flavor of widely accepted practices. 
 

The issue, in my opinion, has more to do with how one interprets both of the following:

1. “intended for use as current money” in Title 18 Chapter 25 Sec 486

2. Constitutional powers of government. 
 

Issue 1 - intended for use as current money. While his actions weren’t intended to deceive anyone with counterfeit money in my opinion, it is intended to be used as legal tinder. The following is an excerpt copied from the existing Liberty Dollar website:

”US dollar backed only by government debt is bad for everyone! That's why I created the Liberty Dollar.

If someone gave you a choice between a stack of ordinary ten-dollar bills and a stack of ten-dollar bills that were printed on the back with a coupon for 5 gallons of gasoline, good at any gas station in the country, which would you choose?

The first stack is just dollar bills. The second stack is also dollar bills, or if gas prices go up, you can use the back of the bills and fill your tank.

You'd have to be crazy to take the first stack! Right? Why not get the benefits of a negotiable currency coupled with the redeemability for a useful commodity, in this case, gasoline? If gas prices go up, you win while everyone else complains about the high cost of gas! If prices don't rise, you still have your ten-dollar bills!

On the other hand, when you hold US dollars, you own debt that you will eventually have to repay. When you give US dollars to someone as payment, they now have debt. Ouch!” 

This seemingly does point to his intent to make an alternate form of money to be used in commerce today despite his explicit comments to the contrary  

 

This now brings us to issue two - constitutional powers. Does the government have a monopoly on issuing tender for commerce?
 

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution specifically gives Congress power to "borrow money" and also power to "coin money and regulate the value" of both U.S. and foreign coins, and regulate interstate commerce, but does not explicitly and unambiguously grant Congress the power to print paper money or make it legal tender.

Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution explicitly forbids the states from issuing "bills of credit" (promissory notes) or making anything but gold and silver coin legal "tender". 

 

Many legal scholars have argued both the intent and the spirit of this legislation and how it should be applied in a multitude of ways. The judge in the NORFED case held that because the Constitution prohibits the states from issuing money, it should be inferred that the drafters also meant to forbid private parties from doing so. This is a big inference in my mind. 
 

To further complicate this I do agree with Kurt in that this should be evaluated under the same lens as crypto currency. It is also intended to replace US government tender with other instruments. Intent may differ whereby NORFEDs goal was to back specie with PMs to hedge inflation while some crypto’s have the goal of alluding oversight. 
 

In summary my opinion, and it’s just that an opinion, is:

1. He isn’t counterfeiting any more than silver rounds or silver futures are counterfeiting. 
 

2. The underlying issue is was this attempting to replace current money, and if so is that illegal or constitutionally allowed?

3. The counterfeiting charge served as a proxy for concerns over replacing current money under the relevant statute. 
 

4. While I don’t right now have my mind made up as to whether constitutionally the founders intended solely for the federal government to issue tender for commerce or not, I do think that this situation isn’t unique. If this is deemed unlawful then so should silver rounds and silver futures. I do think it is interesting that the constitution makes allowance for states to set silver and gold as tender specifically and seemingly has more concern over Un-backed notes. 
 

A very long winded way of laying out the facts needed to form an opinion, and not a firm opinion of right or wrong. Made for some good reading on the beach this morning. 

One thing you can always count on an Alabamian for is a good constitutional wrinkle. We have well over 900 amendments in our (my newly adopted) state constitution. Why? Because nearly every darned thing seems to require one.

[Woods020]

8 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

One thing you can always count on an Alabamian for is a good constitutional wrinkle. We have well over 900 amendments in our (my newly adopted) state constitution. Why? Because nearly every darned thing seems to require one.

Now I will say I have a different opinion on SOME of Carr’s work than you. Only on his overstrikes. The other stuff is just private mint stuff. But we will go down a completely different rabbit hole there and muddy the issue at hand. Each case is unique. 

[Henri Charriere]

[What's a post without Q.A.'s two cents, right?

Firstly, any member interested in the matter of Bernard von NotHaus (here correctly spelled) should at the very least investigate the matter as presented at length in excruciating detail on Wikipedia.

Secondly, though I am familiar with the case, I have no opinion on it.  Though the gentleman never served a day in prison he is, nevertheless, eligible for Executive clemency consideration. It is the office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice to which letters requesting pardon consideration should be sent. The federal court docket number cited in the Wikipedia article may be used in lieu of any other available identifying information. I would strongly suggest all letter-writers familiarize themselves with all aspects of the case from all available sources including the many references provided in the Wikipedia article which was written and revised to reflect the latest developments and amplify or clarify ones made earlier by viewers like you.

The former defendant was a co-founder of the Royal Hawaiian Mint and his technicolor bills as presented in the Wikipedia article, I believe, clearly suggests that fact.]

[RWB]

Still a crook.

[VKurtB]

4 minutes ago, RWB said:

Still a crook.

Out of politeness, we won't herein discuss what you still are. Okay?

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, Woods020 said:

Now I will say I have a different opinion on SOME of Carr’s work than you. Only on his overstrikes. The other stuff is just private mint stuff. But we will go down a completely different rabbit hole there and muddy the issue at hand. Each case is unique. 

I actually rather dislike most of his other stuff (an Amero or two excepted). The ONLY category I do like is his fantasy overstrikes. A bit pricey, but lately what isn't?

 

On edit: I have nothing against the reverses of the New York and Rhode Island state quarters (not the ATB’s), both of which Mr. Carr designed. Not exactly awe inspiring, but nicely serviceable nonetheless. 

Edited July 13, 2021 by VKurtB

[Numismatic, A.A.S.]

This is the only one I have, keep it with the tokens. 

[Numismatic, A.A.S.]

23 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

A bit pricey, but lately what isn't?

Exactly

[Numismatic, A.A.S.]

24 minutes ago, VKurtB said:

I actually rather dislike most of his other stuff (an Amero or two excepted). The ONLY category I do like is his fantasy overstrikes. A bit pricey, but lately what isn't?

I don't collect Carr artwork and I got the Liberty Dollar Token thing in 2005 or 06, it just lays in there.

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Numismatic, A.A.S. said:

I don't collect Carr artwork and I got the Liberty Dollar Token thing in 2005 or 06, it just lays in there.

Yup, just like my Carr overstrikes do.  WITH the sheets explaining what they are and are NOT.

[VKurtB]

I wonder how ol’ Bern decided an ounce of silver was going to be 10 Liberty Dollars. No matter how, it had to be arbitrary. That’s my quarrel with Bernie. He got caught up in an ideological mess that he hadn’t thought all the way through. Being knee jerk ant-fiat very quickly entraps you in arbitrary decisions. But ol’ Bern is STILL a hard currency true believer. I give him points for consistency. 

[VKurtB]

17 minutes ago, SlickCoins said:

I'm still not seeing how any of this makes this man a "crook" or a "counterfeiter", in my opinion.

That’s because you have a lick of common sense, unlike those who have opined differently.

[Henri Charriere]

8 hours ago, RWB said:

Still a crook.

The only way I am going to sleep in peace tonite is believing the response little Virginia O'Hanlon got when she wrote the New York Sun to ask whether there really was a Santa Claus and they published her letter and answered her question in an editorial.  I sense you know something the rest of us do not and, accordingly, lobbing indiscriminate pejorative epithets would be unsatisfying, unproductive, possibly blasphemous bordering on the sacrilegious and ultimately un-American. There are two sides to every story and I/we haven't heard yours.        😉

[VKurtB]

1 hour ago, Quintus Arrius said:

I sense you know something the rest of us do not

You REALLY, REALLY, R-E-A-L-L-Y need to get over that idea when addressing that particular person. Despite his well known penchant for rummaging through archives, followed by self-funded “vanity published” books, he really is not much worth your present fawning. He is just one of a zillion similar people selling unsupported opinion as something falling well short of fact.

Thus spake the federal court. You see, he and I have something in common. We’ve both testified before the same federal judge on utterly unrelated cases. One of us was rebuked by the court, and it wasn’t me.

I’ve also dined alongside his opposing party’s counsel, at an ANA banquet, and listened while said counsel described the “gentleman” as, and I quote, “a clown and an embarrassment”, which comports with my own personal in-person experiences. Nicely put together books, though, I’ll give him that.

For anyone objecting to my characterizations, they are a matter of public record. I offer you:

https://www.coinworld.com/news/precious-metals/1933-double-eagle-trial-roger-burdette-takes-.html
 

 

Edited July 14, 2021 by VKurtB

[Henri Charriere]

Like I said, there are two sides to every story and I haven't heard his side yet.  Certainly being included amongst the 100 most influential people in Numismatics -- as polled by the very same people who felt obliged to include him, militates in his favor.  Unfortunately, I haven't been on the Forum long enough to be granted exemption or immunity from criticizing other members.  I don't know how many Warnings a member such as myself is permitted to accumulate before I am referred to the guillotine so in the meantime I shall try to adopt Just Bob's approach and Be Nice and suggest we all just try to get along.  Besides, I have a flock of 🐓 🐓 🐓 to attend to and the Christian-Greek scriptures require that I love all others unconditionally.  

Edited July 14, 2021 by Quintus Arrius
Missing word.; added line.

[World Colonial]

18 hours ago, VKurtB said:

I wonder how ol’ Bern decided an ounce of silver was going to be 10 Liberty Dollars. No matter how, it had to be arbitrary. That’s my quarrel with Bernie. He got caught up in an ideological mess that he hadn’t thought all the way through. Being knee jerk ant-fiat very quickly entraps you in arbitrary decisions. But ol’ Bern is STILL a hard currency true believer. I give him points for consistency. 

Unless value is referenced to itself as it is with all fiat currency, it has to be arbitrary.  

The "historical" gold silver ratio of about 16-1 was arbitrary.  So were the exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system.

Relative values change, all the time.

[VKurtB]

3 hours ago, World Colonial said:

Unless value is referenced to itself as it is with all fiat currency, it has to be arbitrary.  

The "historical" gold silver ratio of about 16-1 was arbitrary.  So were the exchange rates under the Bretton Woods system.

Relative values change, all the time.

Bretton Woods was ridiculous from the word "Go". It did not work because it literally COULD NOT WORK. Its ultimate demise was in its original design. Perhaps the dumbest thing ever done in economics in the American era, and that's a target rich environment from which to choose.

Edited July 14, 2021 by VKurtB

[Conder101]

On 7/13/2021 at 4:17 PM, VKurtB said:

I wonder how ol’ Bern decided an ounce of silver was going to be 10 Liberty Dollars.

He raised it when the price of silver got too high.  Originally they were $5, then $10, then $20.  I think his last ones were $25.  He had to keep raising the face value of hi "inflation proof" money.

I don't consider him to have been a counterfeiter, but he WAS in violation of Sec 486, which I guess would technically make him a "crook".  But he was harmless and probably should have been ignored.  Once they couldn't ignore him the probation sentence was a good choice.  No need to lock him up.  (No I don't want him crucified.  )