"Liberty Dollars" illegal

Actually, that's not true. That's why I utilized the USCs that I did. If the token was intended to be used as money, which NORFED expressly states is the intent, it is therefore illegal to make, issue, or pass the coin. The code does not express that the token must be attempted to pass as "legal tender" (which is not money), but passsed as money. The code express that money is the expression of "dollars", dimes or tenths, cents or hundreths, and mils or thousandths. By minting the tokens in a metal that is authorized by USC for use in money, and utilizing the denominating expression of "dollar", expressly identifying the token as legally defined "money", it is not lawful to pass the token because the original intent of the token is for utterence.

Regardless of the intent at the time of use, at any time during the process from creation (minting) to utterence, if at any point in the process, the intent extists to utter the token as money, it becomes unlawful. This is where the Attorney General is going to win its argument, IMHO, but this isn't about litigation and law, it's about numismatics.

The similitude to money is what makes the difference here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

It's not a "simlitude of money" if it's an agreed swap. It's a "similitude of money" if you offer Item X for sale at Price Y, and I proffer to you Y Liberty Dollars in lieu of Y dollars.

 

I haven't practiced criminal law in more than 30 years, but I have been in the courtroom during sentencing proceedings for people who unsuccessfully used that form of reasoning in tax evasion and counterfeiting cases. They were'nt at all happy about where the judges sent them, or for how long.

 

I own a nice television, and would rather own a riding lawnmower.

You own a riding lawnmower, and would rather own a nice television.

We swap.

Whose business is this? What tax is due? According to whom?

Now, substitute "Y Liberty Dollars" for "nice television".

Explain to me why there's any difference in law.

 

Technically, according to the Internal Revenue Code (adopted by Congress and signed by the President), in a barter transaction the person receiving the greater monetary value is receiving taxable income in the amount of that excess. Every state and city that has an income tax has similar provisions.

There is no statute forbidding barter of televisions, but the statutes already quoted in this thread effectively forbid barter of unlawful money substitutes.

That said, this thread IS NOT going to continue as a discussion of political philosophy, constitutionality (or wisdom) of the income tax, or any related subject. If you want to continue along those lines, take it to the Open Forum, or this thread will be closed. Any new thread outside the Open Forum bringing it up for further discussion will be removed. Fair warning has been given.

 

When two parties swap items, isn't the implication that the items are of equivilent value?

BTW, the (not so) implied threat, while worthy of a lawyer - being a member of the only profession that has hired goons at its disposal as a matter of course - has no effect whatever on me, a member of a people who have chosen extinction over enslavement for eons.

If you choose to banish me, it will be your loss and no consequence whatever to me. I've been barred from far better places than this.