Dark Moment for Liberty Dollar

[ss_stealth]

Jerry, what's the difference between the US mint making 1 oz silver rounds and some independent mint making 1 oz silver rounds?

No one in their right mind would buy a silver dollar from the mint and spend it on a snack off the Dollar Menu at McD's -- especially when they paid $20 to get the coin in the first place. These coins aren't for spending, they're for collecting. LD's on the other hand were minted to use as alternative FRN's. Making precious, precious metals into paperweights or display pieces seems like more of an interference of commerce than making an alternative medium of exchange.

The most glaring difference to me is that the US mint doesn't make any money on it. Is that grounds for 'interfering with commerce'? If so, you'd think the USPS would be calling the FBI out on UPS and FedEx. Then again, they aren't in the business of precious metals.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by ss_stealth

Jerry, what's the difference between the US mint making 1 oz silver rounds and some independent mint making 1 oz silver rounds?

In my humble and private opinion, I can see no problem with the activities of what the LD people have engaged in. On the other hand, my opinion does not equate to law or legislation. Further still on the other hand, when shown in the light of what is construed as 'law', code, rules, regulations, there is an apparent problem. In the eyes of the Law (Constitution), congress was granted the authority to (for all intents and purposes) control the manufacture (minting) of coins, and Congress prescribed the manner that it would be done. Yet further on that same other hand, Congress did NOT enact a law that would allow any private person or private corporation to 'mint' 'coins' to be used for the payment of debts, obligations and the such.

Originally Posted by ss_stealth

No one in their right mind would buy a silver dollar from the mint and spend it on a snack off the Dollar Menu at McD's -- especially when they paid $20 to get the coin in the first place. These coins aren't for spending, they're for collecting. LD's on the other hand were minted to use as alternative FRN's. Making precious, precious metals into paperweights or display pieces seems like more of an interference of commerce than making an alternative medium of exchange.

The most glaring difference to me is that the US mint doesn't make any money on it. Is that grounds for 'interfering with commerce'?

Without 'charges' being officially brought forth, it is hard to say who is masterminding this activity that the government has become a part and party to. If in fact there is an 'interference with commerce', it would be claimed by the Federal Reserve, as the Federal Reserve already have a lien on all property in the geographical boundaries of the north American continent, by virtue of the use of their private FRN paper. That use of the FRN has built a debt higher than the reserves of gold, silver and platinum that the US might like to construe as its' own reserves. As another example of how interfering with commerce can be envisioned, consider this: Here in Florida, Nancy Grant was (allegedly) giving legal advice to men and women. She was not charging for that service, and therefore was providing information that is under the regulatory control of the Florida Bar. Well, the Florida Bar cannot stand up to the type of revenue loss that would be incurred should hundreds of such people as Nancy Grant were to continue doing the same thing (giving away something that is otherwise used to implement a profiteering scheme). There was no definite 'defining statutory language' on the books of Florida Statutes, therefore, for the purpose of convicting Nancy Grant, the court arbitrarily made up such law and enacted that same law right there in the court room. It was not called 'interfering with commerce', as that would make the matter all to obvious to the public.

Originally Posted by ss_stealth

If so, you'd think the USPS would be calling the FBI out on UPS and FedEx. Then again, they aren't in the business of precious metals.

I have just a gut feeling, that should someone research in detail the history of the corporations you have listed immediately above, one would probably find that the US Postal Service has made contractual agreements with those 'private' corporations that would allow the private companies to perform those services. If that was not the case, then you already know what type of sorry service the USPS provides, now multiply that misery by about 50,000 (a number just off the top of my head).

Jerry

[Extramural]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

By the customs and usage clause that is so predominate in the courts, many things have been made a matter of judicial 'law' merely upon the 'custom and usage' of such thing. The 'admission' you speak of, could be reached through another tool of the judiciary, called the 'presumption'. If something is customarily used for a long period of time, and there are no recorded rebuttals to the customary use, then the judiciary automatically 'presumes' that you have acquiesced to the 'custom and usage', thereby initiating an 'admission' to your agreement.

Jerry

This is why the question:

Am I presumed innocent of every element of this charge?" is so important.

Another question which would utterly frustrate the court would be:

"Am I allowed to know and be advised of all that you presume I understand?"

[Jerry Pitts]

Yes! Again, in my humble and private opinion, those are excellent questions that should be placed before the judiciary agent.

Jerry

Originally Posted by Extramural

This is why the question:

Am I presumed innocent of every element of this charge?" is so important.

Another question which would utterly frustrate the court would be:

"Am I allowed to know and be advised of all that you presume I understand?"

[blu3duk]

Back in the day [I can say that now that i have celebrated the 16th anniversary of my 29th birthday last month] I was told that the "S" with a single vertical line through it was for the Spanish Reale and the "S" with a double vertical line through it came from the over imposing of a "U" on the "S" to delinate that the coin was "US" as opposed to belonging to another geo-political jurisdiction. That the bottom of the "U" was taken offby a machine and the looks of the coin or paper was striking and the people that were in power instead of re-running the mistakes got it passed through that it was "okie-dokie" and we were left with such in our history..... but of course there as to be a conspiracy to it somewhere!...... bgosh where is that Alex Limbaugh or Rush Jones when they are needed!!!

ANyhow i am most probably wrong cause i cant find anything to support my position on the net, and if it aint there of course it has to be false!

William
Central IDaho

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Extramural

This is why the question:

Am I presumed innocent of every element of this charge?" is so important.

Another question which would utterly frustrate the court would be:

"Am I allowed to know and be advised of all that you presume I understand?"

I would maybe soften old Roy up by just asking:

Am I presumed innocent until proven guilty?

Then if the old Bean answers go with:

Am I presumed innocent of every element of this allegation?

(Would one want to stay at allegation, or stipulate to the charge? I don't know.)

That other question is a really good one too, thanks for that one.

[Shoonra]

The history of the dollar sign ($) was given in A History of Mathematical Notations by Florian Cajori (1929) vol. 2, pages 15-29. The common story about the dollar sign being a combination of U and S is wrong. The dollar sign predated the formation of the Union. It comes from the Spanish silver dollar, the primary precious metal coin of the American colonies (because Britain deliberately kept their supply of British coinage low).

The first theory is that the two vertical strokes are in imitation of the two Pillars of Hercules that appeared on the Spanish dollar. These resembled II. The S may have indicated either Spanish or Silver, in a monogram intended to signify money amounts calculated in the Spanish "Pillar dollar".

Another theory is that the dollar sign combines the figure 8 with either the letter P or the letter R, because the Spanish dollar (the Real or Peso) could be broken up into Pieces of Eight for use as smaller coins (a fact memorialized in the American use of "two bits" for a quarter of a dollar).

Cajori himself investigated Spanish arithmetic books of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as handwritten financial records of that era, and found that the Spanish themselves were using a not very definite monagram for their dollar, which combined an S and a P. These squiggle, which seems to vary according to who was writing it, was adopted in Spain's American colonies such as in papers in Mexico City and Neuvo Madrid (New Orleans). From there the same squiggle migrated into the US. In the papers of Ezra L'Hommedieu for 1776, the monogram appears sometimes with two vertical strokes and other times with just one vertical stroke.

There is no significance at all to whether there is one or two vertical strokes in the dollar sign. There is no authority suggesting that two versions mean something different. No book on accounting or banking suggests anything like that. No typeface, no typewriter, no adding machine, etc., offers both versions. Arguments about some arcane significance to whether the dollar sign has one or two vertical strokes have been rejected in court.

[Jerry Pitts]

Excellent historical summation of the suspected origin of the $. It is good to have researchers around that can provide ample and accurate material from which all of us can learn.

I did notice in your dissertation, that there was no rebuttal to the claim that the symbol "$" does in fact give representation to the term 'dollar'. Based upon your research and your expertise in such matters, I would think that this pretty much sums it up, that every time we see the symbol "$", we can be reminded that it is representing what we have grown to know as the 'dollar', and that the definition afforded by others in regard to the definition of 'dollar' would infer a specified measure of either gold or silver (depending on which school of thought you are working from).

Thank you again.

Jerry

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The history of the dollar sign ($) was given in A History of Mathematical Notations by Florian Cajori (1929) vol. 2, pages 15-29. The common story about the dollar sign being a combination of U and S is wrong. The dollar sign predated the formation of the Union. It comes from the Spanish silver dollar, the primary precious metal coin of the American colonies (because Britain deliberately kept their supply of British coinage low).

The first theory is that the two vertical strokes are in imitation of the two Pillars of Hercules that appeared on the Spanish dollar. These resembled II. The S may have indicated either Spanish or Silver, in a monogram intended to signify money amounts calculated in the Spanish "Pillar dollar".

Another theory is that the dollar sign combines the figure 8 with either the letter P or the letter R, because the Spanish dollar (the Real or Peso) could be broken up into Pieces of Eight for use as smaller coins (a fact memorialized in the American use of "two bits" for a quarter of a dollar).

Cajori himself investigated Spanish arithmetic books of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as handwritten financial records of that era, and found that the Spanish themselves were using a not very definite monagram for their dollar, which combined an S and a P. These squiggle, which seems to vary according to who was writing it, was adopted in Spain's American colonies such as in papers in Mexico City and Neuvo Madrid (New Orleans). From there the same squiggle migrated into the US. In the papers of Ezra L'Hommedieu for 1776, the monogram appears sometimes with two vertical strokes and other times with just one vertical stroke.

There is no significance at all to whether there is one or two vertical strokes in the dollar sign. There is no authority suggesting that two versions mean something different. No book on accounting or banking suggests anything like that. No typeface, no typewriter, no adding machine, etc., offers both versions. Arguments about some arcane significance to whether the dollar sign has one or two vertical strokes have been rejected in court.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

..... that the definition afforded by others in regard to the definition of 'dollar' would infer a specified measure of either gold or silver (depending on which school of thought you are working from).

My school of thought is that a dollar is the coin or currency issued by the US govt which calls itself a dollar or which adds up to 100 cents. It is not calculated from any exchange value in any commodity, whether grain, gasoline, or gold.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

My school of thought is that a dollar is the coin or currency issued by the US govt which calls itself a dollar or which adds up to 100 cents. It is not calculated from any exchange value in any commodity, whether grain, gasoline, or gold.

Unfortunately, Shoonra, your opinion/definition of what a term means, has as little significance as does the opinion/definition that I may apply or that of thousands of others out here in the world. You ought to know that the 'opinion' (judicially speaking) can only be rendered by the judge sitting. Neither of us can lawfully legislate some arbitrary meaning into the law. Therefore, we have to lean on what the Law already says, otherwise, we attempt to elevate our own beings above the law. In my humble and private opinion, I believe you had the definition 2/3 right. You mentioned "coins" and "100 cents" (which is also 'coin') as being 'dollar' and with that I can concur, but nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about 'paper' money as being a lawful form of 'money'.

Jerry