Liberty Dollars may be subject to seizure By Mike Sussman
Liberty Dollars May Be Subject to Seizure : On March 18,
2011 the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western
District of North Carolina issued a press release with the
headline, “Defendant Convicted of Minting His Own
Currency.” The article explains that Bernard von NotHaus
was convicted after an eight day trial with less than two
hours of jury deliberation. He was found guilty specifically
“…of making coins resembling and similar to
United States coin; of issuing, passing, selling, and possessing
Liberty Dollar coins; of issuing and passing Liberty Dollar
coins intended for use as current money; and of conspiracy
against the United States.”
Von NotHaus, the founder of the National Organization for
the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code,
known as NORFED as well as Liberty Services, was president
of NORFED and the executive director of Liberty Dollar Services.
He designed the Liberty Dollar coins that were marked with
the dollar sign, the word dollar, USA, Liberty, and Trust
in God, a motto similar to the United States currency motto
IN GOD WE TRUST.
Since 1998, NORFED has attempted to circulate Liberty Dollars
in the United States and Puerto Rico by mixing them into
the current money of the country. The stated purpose of
this action was to limit reliance on and compete with United
States currency.
The United States Mint, in coordination with the Department
of Justice issued a warning to American citizens that the
Liberty Dollar was “not legal tender.” Use of
the Liberty Dollars as circulating money, according to the
Department of Justice, is a federal crime.
U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins said that NORFED attempted
to undermine the legitimate currency of the country, which
is, “…simple a unique form of domestic terrorism.”
She declared that, “…these forms of anti-government
activities do not involve violence, [however,] they are
every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present
danger to the economic stability of this country.”
She added, “We are determined to meet these threats
through infiltration, disruption, and dismantling of organizations
which seek to challenge the legitimacy of our democratic
form of government.”
NORFED responded that the Liberty Dollar never claimed
to be legal tender. They said it was a numismatic piece
or medallion which may be used voluntarily as barter. However,
Ron Whitney, executive director of the International Reciprocal
Trade Association, said that the Liberty Dollars are not
part of the modern trade and barter industry.
The lead prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney’s Office,
Jill Rose, said that Liberty Dollars can be confiscated
as contraband even if they are only exhibited for educational
purposes. A Secret Service agent Glen Kessler, assistant
special agent in charge in North Carolina, said that if
an agent witnessed something that was thought to be contraband,
it would be confiscated. Meanwhile, after the conviction,
the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte said that
possession of the medallion was not a violation unless there
was the intent to use them as von NotHaus did.
An exhibit of Liberty Dollars for the American Numismatic
Association World’s Fair of Money in Rosemont, Illinois
wan banned by the ANA because the Department of Justice
had not issued a declaration that the Dollars could be exhibited
without fear of confiscation even for educational purposes.
The previous exhibit of Liberty Dollars was in April 2011
at the Central States Numismatic Society Convention in Rosemont,
Illinois, one month after von NotHaus was convicted. Steven
Bieda, CSNS legal counsel, said that he didn’t see
from federal authorities that they planned to confiscate
Liberty Dollars that were privately held. He said, “I
note that the pieces are being sold and trade on on-line
auction sites such as eBay, and have personally seen these
pieces sold at local coin shows and coin shops, all without
any apparent legal consequence. Thus, it would be my recommendation
that should an exhibitor want to place an exhibit involving
these pieces, and assuming that all the relevant exhibitor
criteria is satisfied, that they be allowed to do so; [however
if] the federal government or any other legal authority
were to take legal action…that risk is entirely on
the exhibitor.”