Legal Reality

Bigger text (+) | Smaller text (-)

Liberty Dollar case -- a few thoughts

21 March A.D. 2011

Here are just some sites that fill in background on the case.

Overview (video interview)

Organization´s site

FBI Raid (Von Nothaus article)

Liberty Dollar´s request for injunction against feds (class action suit mentioned)


Pre-trial and Trial (3 July 2010) (Von NotHaus takes stand in trial)

Conviction (DOJ press release)

This Author´s Observations

From the article,

"Authorities said Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency that were marked with the dollar sign ($); the words dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust); and other features associated with legitimate coins."

From the article,

"The coins were marked with the dollar sign, the words [´]dollar,[´] [´]USA,[´] [´]Liberty,[´] [´]Trust in God[´] (instead of [´]In God We Trust[´]) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coins."

From the article at,

"Who´s really undermining the currency ... ?" (emphasis added)

The concept of "the currency" (emphasis added) presumes falsely that there is but one "choice of law" in play in America.

There are two. In other words, both foundational "choices of law" are in play in America. These two are (1) the Law of the Land and (2) the Law of the Sea.

B.FDR. (Before FDR)

From the founding of the nation until FDR, both gold and silver Coin were "the currency," save those periods in those locations that circulated ill-fated paper, e.g., the "greenbacks."

FDR basically took gold out of circulation. But, the nation was still operating under a legit Money system, because silver was still very much in general circulation.

B.JFK. (Before JFK´s assassination)

In that time after FDR´s gold confiscation (from safety deposit boxes) and before the assassination of JFK, a period of roughly 30 years, silver still circulated. The motive behind JFK´s assassination was the termination of circulation of all remaining forms of an honest system of weights and measures. Thus, circa 1965, no more silver coins were minted (with an eye toward use in general circulation).

A.UCC (After the UCC)

To change the currency, both national and state law had to be changed. The national law was changed by gutting the definition of the term "dollar." It used to be defined in terms of grains of fine silver. It´s not defined at all now (a circular concept is not a definition). 31 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5102, 5103, etc.

To change the law at the state level, "they" promulgated the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). That body of statutes covers several areas, by which mechanism the key feature was hidden. "Dollar" is nowhere defined, and "money" is defined to include "federal reserve notes."

By this statutory (political) mechanism, "the other currency" was tolerated, allowed, recognized. By this mechanism, the change in choice of law was made complete.

How can this be?

If the Constitution were admissible evidence of law, then it´d be "difficult," shall we say, to change the Currency to a "funny money" currency. But, there being no Constitution, the change came by way of those in charge of the political issues, namely the elected "legislators."

The "currency" is the best evidence of the system´s foundational choice of law. Under a legit system, i.e., a Law of the Land system, "the currency" would be gold and silver Coin. Thus, where one finds gold and silver Coin in general circulation, the choice of law for that system is the Law of the Land (for matters that accrue relative to the land, as distinguished from matters accruing relative to the water or to the air). Similarly, where one finds "funny money" (paper documents recognized as "currency" under force of law) in general circulation, the choice of law for that system is the Law of the Sea (for all matters, whether they´d accrue relative to the land, the water, or the air). In that system, "the currency" IS "funny money."

The Liberty Dollar litigation is on-going, in that this author fully expects there´ll be an appeal. So, once again, the observations made here will be limited (in terms of clarity of specific identification of the legal issues that steered this case the way it went at trial). The term "terrorist" is stigmatizing, and we´ll see if the prosecutor gets sued for libel for using it (outside the protection of the litigation process). But, let´s take that path momentarily to get a handle on the concept being communicated by its use. Someone (actually a group of very, very, exceedingly, unbelievably rich people) went to a LOT of trouble to change the foundational choice of law for all commerce in America. That change took the combined efforts of national and state legislation. And, all of that legislation was changed, meaning that the "funny money" system was allowed to flourish.

It took the "buying" of a sufficient number of legislators to bring about the change in the first place. It takes a continual "buying" of that same sufficient number to keep that change in place. For this reason, among other reasons, this author has said, and will continue to say, that there are no political solutions. The political system has long since been compromised. The reason it´s still taught is that if "they" can keep "us" thinking that if we´ll do the same thing the same way and yet produce a different result, they´ll remain unfettered in their "take over" plans.

"They" work against us under "choice of law" games, so we must learn those games out of pure self-defense.

Under a legit system, it´d be an act of war, literally, to circulate "funny money." (The original States committed acts of war against themselves by issuing "Bills of Credit." It was that very line of activity that compelled the Founders to call the Philadelphia Convention.) It´d be instantly criminal to run "funny money" were the choice of law was the Law of the Land. So, first the choice of law had to be changed, and then the "currency" could be changed. For that change to work, that alternative "currency" had to be ready the instant the law changed so that commerce wouldn´t come to an instant and fatal halt. To make that change in currency appear seamless, the paper had to be changed to make it appear identical to those using it.

Under the present "funny money" system, there is no association, whatsoever, between the concept, and the symbol, and the term "dollar" and any weight of any metal, whether silver or gold. Someone (actually a group of someones) when to a LOT of trouble to destroy that very definition. Thus, where any of those ideas is associated with a weight, whether measured in silver or gold, that fight (war) is reactivated.

There is NOTHING wrong with minting silver, gold, etc., into coins, bars, etc.

There is NOTHING wrong with denominating the weight of those end products, which would typically be based on troy ounces (or fractions thereof), in terms of the weight.

But, one literally gets into a "war" condition in America (and, for that matter, anywhere one finds "funny money" in general circulation) where one associates any weight, of any material, whether silver, gold, platinum, copper, etc., with the unit of exchange, i.e., "dollar."

From the political point of view, even the association of a weight with the term "dollar" MIGHT have been possible to overlook, because the volume was so small. But, when a particular anti-FED politician´s likeness was embossed on one side of those coins, the feds were compelled to act and to act swiftly. They acted.

Even still, the defendant can´t be compelled to agree to choice of law. Once that factor in the case against him was not objected to, the case against him was made, and what we see in the conviction is the confirmation of that fact. (This author expects the conviction to be upheld on appeal.) The instant the "place" called "this state" was the agreed-to provider of the choice of law, the fate of the defendants was substantially sealed.

This author relies on "silver rounds" on a very regular basis. What you´ll note is that the traditional silver rounds make absolutely, positively no mention, whatsoever, of the concept, term, or "symbol" of "dollar." Those mints could produce coins, bars, rings, ear rings, necklaces, watch bands, etc., with their favorite political figures embossed on them until the cows come home.

"Dollar," as used in "this state," cannot be defined. It must remain undefined, or else the entirety of the "new world order" (and it financing mechanism) would be defeated.

No one is compelled to trade in "this state." "Dollar" HAS a definition in terms of grains of fine silver, outside of "this state," but not in "this state."

Tragic, and extremely expensive, learning going on right now. We dishonor von Nothaus´ effort if we don´t do a complete and competent failure analysis of his case.

It´s a horrific term, "terrorist," for there is no violence involved, whatsoever. We can hope the prosecutor gets sued for using that term in reference to von Nothaus. However, keep in mind that the "war" angle suggested by the use of that term is perhaps the single-most significant concept to understand from that case. There IS a war going on, and it has EVERYTHING to do with "choice of law."

"Funny money´ systems declare, by allowing circulation of "funny money," that the foundational choice of law for that system is the Law of the Sea. "The currency" for a Law of the Sea system (where the Law of the Land should apply and doesn´t) IS "funny money."

Legit Money systems, which tolerate nothing but an honest system of weights and measures as Currency, declare, by allowing nothing but an honest system of weights and measures to circulate as Currency, that the foundational choice of law for that system is the Law of the Land. "The Currency" for a Law of the Land system is typically gold and silver Coin.

Thus, yes, "the currency" has changed, but it´s not "the currency" that has changed. "The currency" is the best evidence of what actually has been changed. It´s the foundational choice of law for the entire system that has changed. The evidence of that change in choice of law is "the currency."

The two currencies are, literally, at war against each other.

It´s not the return to a gold standard that will fix anything. It´s the statutory definition of the term "dollar" that will fix the problem. But, "dollar" can´t/won´t be defined legitimately until sometime after we put and keep an honest system of weights and measures in general circulation. To make "funny money" illegal without having a ready supply of legal currency is to shut down the marketplace, which is why "we´ll" never legislate "the fed" out of existence (at least not until Money is back in regular circulation). The only people in America in a position to get and keep Money back in general circulation are the Mom and Pop shops. The big boys are fatally addicted to "funny money." (They preserve their assets by shipping them overseas during the transition from "funny money" back to Money.)

What von Nothaus has correctly in mind is the need to get back into the practice of using an honest system of weights and measures. We do well to continue along that line. His version would very likely still be "out there" but for the act, in "this state," of the association of a "weight" with the concept of "dollar."

We don´t need "dollars" in circulation. We need Money in circulation. Money can come in the weight of a "dollar," or it can come in the weight of a "troy ounce," etc. Until Money is back in general circulation, it´s FAR better to forget we ever heard the term "dollar" and to work exclusively in terms of "troy ounces." There´s no question which "choice of law" is referred to where the transaction is based on "troy ounces."

Harmon L. Taylor
Legal Reality
Dallas, Texas

Subscribe / unsubscribe : [email protected]

See also,

Why all the despair over the Liberty Dollar case?

What is the definition of "dollar?"

Feds seek $7M in privately made ´Liberty Dollars´ received from Larry Becraft

Here is a AUSA commenting on the NORFED conviction:

"Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism," U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said. "While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country."
See: Liberty Dollar creator convicted in federal court

Here is one of the first cases where the Supremes described the power of Congress regarding counterfeiting:

United States v. Marigold, 50 U.S. (9 How.) 560, 567-68 (1850): "They appertain rather to the execution of an important trust invested by the Constitution, and to the obligation to fulfill that trust on the part of the government, namely, the trust and the duty of creating and maintaining a uniform and pure metallic standard of value throughout the Union. The power of coining money and of regulating its value was delegated to Congress by the Constitution for the very purpose, as assigned by the framers of that instrument, of creating and preserving the uniformity and purity of such standard of value * * *

"If the medium which the government was authorized to create and establish could immediately be expelled, and substituted by one it had neither created, estimated, nor authorized - one possessing no intrinsic value - then the power conferred by the Constitution would be useless - wholly fruitless of every end it was designed to accomplish. Whatever functions Congress are, by the Constitution, authorized to perform, they are, when the public good requires it, bound to perform; and on this principle, having emitted a circulating medium, a standard of value indispensable for the purposes of the community, and for the action of the government itself, they are accordingly authorized and bound in duty to prevent its debasement and expulsion, and the destruction of the general confidence and convenience, by the influx and substitution of a spurious coin in lieu of the constitutional currency."

Let me see if I can understand this argument of the AUSA. The Fed counterfeits currency, and Bernard was following the dictates of Marigold. The counterfeiters accused those not engaged in counterfeiting of counterfeiting. Do I discern these facts correctly?



Guest Post: Thoughts On The Liberty Dollar Debacle

Edwin Vieira, JR. "A CROSS OF GOLD"

NOTICE: Harmon L. Taylor, Larry Becraft, Edwin Vieira, and other presented entities are not affiliated with Freedom School.
NOTICE: If anything in this presentation is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification.
Specialty Areas

All the powers in the universe seem to favor the person who has confidence.

More & Other Information - Resource Pages
AntiShyster Magazine Attention Signing the Constitution Away
Aware Belligerent Claimant
Bonds Citizenship / nationality related items
Education Graphics
Health related
Howard Griswold
Jerry Kirk Jurisdiction
Law related items Lee Brobst
Lewis Mohr Luis Ewing
Money Reading Material
Reading Room Stuff
Tax matters Travel related
NOTICE: The information on this page was brought to you by people who paid this website forward so that someone such as you might also profit by having access to it. If you care to do so also please feel encouraged to KEEP THIS SITE GOING by making a donation today. Thank you. Make donation with PayPal - it is fast, free and secure!

Freedom-School is not affiliated with the links on this page - unless otherwise stated.
This enterprise collectively is known and generally presented as "" - "we," "us" or "our" are other expressions of used throughout. "You" is in reference to the user / visitor.

This is the fine print that so important. Freedom School and other information served is so for educational purposes only, no liability expressed or assumed for use.
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice.
Freedom School does not consent to or condone unlawful action.
Freedom School advocates and encourages one and all to adhere to, support and
defend all Law which is particularly applicable.
Information is intended for [those] men and women who are not "US CITIZENS" or "TAXPAYERS" - continued use, reference or citing indicates voluntary and informed compliance. Support is not offered.

Freedom School is a free speech site, non-commercial enterprise and operation as
there is no charge for things presented. site relies on this memorandum and others in support of this philosophy and operation.

The noteworthy failure of [the] government or any alleged agency thereof to at any time rebut anything appearing on this website constitutes a legal admission of the fidelity and accuracy of the materials presented, which are offered in good faith and prepared as such by Freedom School and any and all [third] parties affiliated or otherwise. THIS IS AN ELECTRONIC AGREEMENT AND IS A LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, EQUIVALENT TO A SIGNED, WRITTEN CONTRACT BETWEEN PARTIES - If the government, or anyone else, wants to assert that any of the religious and/or political statements appearing on this website are not factual or otherwise in error, then they as the moving party have the burden of proof, and they must responsively meet that burden of proof under the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) and under the due process clauses found in the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Amendments to the national Constitution BEFORE there will be response to any summons, questions, or unsubstantiated and slanderous accusations. Attempts at calling presented claims "frivolous" without specifically rebutting the particular claim, or claims, deemed "frivolous" will be in deed be "frivolous" and prima facie evidence that shall be used accordingly. Hey guys, if anything on this site is found to be in error a good faith effort will be made to correct it in timely fashion upon notification. is not responsible for content of any linked website or material.
In addition, users may not use to engage in, facilitate or further unlawful conduct;
use the service in any way, or manner, that harms us or anyone connected with us or whose work is presented;
damage, disable, overburden, or impair the service (or the network(s) connected to the site)
or interfere with anyone´s use and enjoyment of the website.

All claims to be settled on the land - Austin, Travis county Texas, united States of America, using Texas Common Law.
All parts of this contract apply to the maximum extent permitted by law. A court may hold that we cannot enforce a part of this contract as written. If this happens, then you and we will replace that part with terms that most closely match the intent of the part that we cannot enforce. The rest of this contract will not change. This is the entire contract between you and us regarding your use of the service. It supersedes any prior contract or statements regarding your use of the site. If there exists some manner of thing missing we do not forfeit our right to that thing as
we reserve all rights.
We may assign, or modify, alter, change this contract, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice to you. You may not assign this contract, or any part of it, to any other person. Any attempt by you to do so is void. You may not transfer to anyone else, either temporarily or permanently, any rights to use the site or material contained within.

GOOGLE ANALYTICS: While we do not automatically collect personally identifiable information about you when you visit the site, we do collect non-identifying and aggregate information that we use to improve our Web site design and our online presence.
Visitors to this site who have Javascript enabled are tracked using Google Analytics. The type of information that Google Analytics collects about you includes data like: the type of Web browser you are using; the type of operating system you are using; your screen resolution; the version of Flash you may be using; your network location and IP address (this can include geographic data like the country, city and state you are in); your Internet connection speed; the time of your visit to the site; the pages you visit on the site; the amount of time you spend on each page of the site and referring site information. In addition to the reports we receive using Google Analytics data, the data is shared with Google. For more information on Google´s privacy policies, visit:
Here is Google´s description of how Google Analytics works and how you can disable it: "Google Analytics collects information anonymously, and much like examining footprints in sand, it reports website trends without identifying individual visitors. Analytics uses its own cookie to track visitor interactions. The cookie is used to store information, such as what time the current visit occurred, whether the visitor has been to the site before, and what site referred the visitor to the web page. Google Analytics customers can view a variety of reports about how visitors interact with their website so they can improve their website and how people find it. A different cookie is used for each website, and visitors are not tracked across multiple sites. Analytics requires that all websites that use it must update their privacy policy to include a notice that fully discloses the use of Analytics. To disable this type of cookie, some browsers will indicate when a cookie is being sent and allow you to decline cookies on a case-by-case basis."

Presentation Copyright© 2007, 2021
All Rights Reserved


Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional