Bernard von NotHaus was sentenced on 12/3/14 to only 6 months home detention even though the prosecution was seeking between 14-17.5 years. Wonder what will happen regarding the forfeiture of some 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and specie? Here is a link to the story: http://www.nysun.com/editorials/beyond-bernard-von-nothaus/88958/ TC
True. Not to be confused with Dr. Van Nostrand...lol. TC http://img1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121015113455/unanything/images/8/8f/Van_Nostrand.jpg
Would love to hear what Rand Paul has to say about the matter. (Everyone knows what his dad would say). What most people fail to realize, Von NotHaus was actively producing coinage for many years prior to the latest Liberty Dollar saga. One of my favorites below. I wonder if Steve McGarret would have considered it counterfeiting. http://www.lynknight.com/ShowAuctionDetails.Asp?auction_Id=235832
Wow, he got off real easy, I wonder how much his legal defense cost him? I also wonder how long until he's back to minting coins?
He had a scam going for sure, based on the track record of this type of operation (warehouse bank). "Liberty dollars" (sic) were a bad deal at greatly inflated prices. I wonder if any of those who sunk money into this mess are going to be able to get anything out? The Feds. are suing for civil forfeiture.
Without even discussing his Liberty Dollars, he produced some very nice Hawaiian Commemoratives at his mint. They are just as appealing as any commemoratives the government has produced. I own several of his pieces and doubt I will ever sell them.
Here are a couple snippets from the legal decision by the judge that show that some of the customers may have a shot at getting something back: Now for the forfeiture information. First, we need to get a flavor for what follows. Footnote 1 of the Court's December 1st order reads as follows: The manner in which the Government has addressed these issues does not inspire confidence. The Government filed two new motions in November 2014 seeking much of the same relief requested in its original motion while also paring down its request for forfeiture of items as contraband pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 492. (Docs. 280, 281). On December 1, 2014, the Government submitted two additional filings – an Addendum to its November 2014 filings and an affidavit from the lead case agent, Special Agent Romagnuolo. (Docs. 283, 284). Together, the Government has submitted a total of eight filings on various forfeiture matters – in each instance, identifying evidence or advancing arguments that were not adequately addressed by the Government at the outset. On to the Court's conclusions of law: VIII. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Based upon the evidence presented at trial, the forfeiture hearings, the Court’s review of the record as a whole, and the factual findings recited herein, the Court hereby finds the following as a matter of law: 1) The entities that were used by Bernard von Nothaus in connection with operating this conspiracy, namely, Shelter Systems, the Royal Hawaiian Mint, NORFED, Liberty Services, and the Liberty Dollar Organization were essentially one entity and the alter ego of Defendant. 2) The Government has not established by a preponderance of the evidence that ALL Liberty Dollar coins, or the eleven groups of coins specified within its most recent filing, associated with the Liberty Dollar Organization from 1998 through the present are subject to 18 U.S.C. § 4 forfeiture as “counterfeit” or “contraband per se." 3) With the exception of Hawaii Dala devices, the items identified within Government Trial Exhibit 71 and Exhibit F34 as “Dies Molds, and Casts Seized at Sunshine Minting, Inc. on November 14, 2007” are forfeited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 492. 4) With the exception of Hawaii Dala devices, the dies identified within Government Exhibit 71B (dies not located in the original search but subsequently identified by Sunshine Minting and seized by law enforcement) are also forfeited pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 492. (3/10/11 Tr. 324). 5) The funds seized from the Liberty Services Integra Bank Account 2980 in the amount of $254,534.09 are forfeitable under both §§ 853(a)(1) and (a)(2); [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] 6) The 11 Silver Bars and Silver Scrap totaling 10,720.60 troy ounces (or approximately 800-900 pounds) is forfeitable pursuant to § 853(a)(2); [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] 7) With respect to the 16,000.05 troy ounces of raw and unminted silver, the Court finds as a matter of law that the Government has not shown by a preponderance of the evidence the requisite nexus between the Defendant's LDO [Liberty Dollar Organization] and the silver housed in this safekeeping account. The Government has not proven a “substantial connection” that indicates that this quantity of silver was intended to be used to facilitate the conspiracy. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(2). Likewise, the Government has not proven that this quantity of silver constitutes proceeds from the illegal activity or is derived from proceeds. 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1). 8 ) All seized items associated or stored via the Defendant's Royal Hawaiian Mint account are forfeitable pursuant to both §§ 853(a)(1) and (a)(2). [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] 9) To the extent they are not already designated as falling within the “counterfeit” category of jury-determined forfeited items, the copper coins seized from the residence of William Kevin Innes are forfeitable pursuant to both §§ 853(a)(1) and (a)(2). [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] 10) The items seized from the Liberty Services’ Fulfillment Office in Evansville, Indiana are forfeitable pursuant to §§ 853(a)(1) and (a)(2). [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] 11) The state monetary initiative Liberty Dollar coins are forfeitable pursuant to § 853(a)(1) [Note: The statutory reference has been corrected by amended order to read: 18 USC sections 492 and 982.] ---From Memorandum and Order, docket entry 285, Dec. 1, 2014, with my correcting notations inserted based on my reading of the Amended Order, docket entry 286, Dec. 2, 2014, in United States v. Bernard von NotHaus, case no. 09-cr-00027-RLV, U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina (italics and underscoring in the original).
