US Mint v. NORFED: The legal case

Following yesterdays blockbuster story about the US Mint claiming that NORFED and the Liberty Dollar are illegal, we've done some research into the claims made by the Mint regarding the citations of US Code, specifically the following:

18 U.S.C. 486:

"Whoever, except as authorized by law, makes or utters or passes, or
attempts to utter or pass, any coins of gold or silver or other metal,
or alloys of metals, intended for use as current money, whether in the
resemblance of coins of the United States or of foreign countries, or
of original design, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than five years, or both."

We are therefore left to ask what is "current" money? Here's a Supreme Court take on the meaning of "current money":

Bull v. Bank of Kasson, 123 U.S. 105, 112 (1887)

"Undoubtedly it is the law that, to be negotiable, a bill,
promissory note or check must be payable in money, or whatever is
current as such by the law of the country where the instrument is
drawn or payable. There are numerous cases where a designation of the
payment of such instruments in notes of particular banks or
associations, or in paper not current as money, has been held to
destroy their negotiability. [cit.] But within a few years, commencing
with the first issue in this country of notes declared to have the
quality of legal tender, it has been a common practice of drawers of
bills of exchange or checks, or makers of promissory notes, to
indicate whether the same are to be paid in gold or silver, or in such
notes; and the term 'current funds' has been used to designate any of
these, all being current and declared, by positive enactment, to be
legal tender. It was intended to cover whatever was receivable and
current by law as money, whether in the form of notes or coin."

Thus, it is quite clear that in order for a Liberty Dollar to violate 486, it must be a clear attempt to counterfiet, or pass as legal tender. Legal tender, being a status applied only to currencies which do not hold intrinsic value, i.e. fiat currencies, it is therefore legally impossible for a metal backed currency of any form to require protection of the status of legal tender, since only fiat currencies require legal tender status to make them legally worth the same as *real* money.

Note that the US Constitution states that "the states shall make nothing but gold an silver a tender". "Tender" is different from "legal tender", in that "Tender" is intrinsically valuable, while "legal tender" is something that is made valuable by statute.

Based on this, it is rather obvious that the US Mint and its Justice Department flunkies have no case. Whoever at the Justice Department gave them this opinion must be the same person who told President Bush that he could legally torture prisoners....

Hat Tip: Bob Dobbs at the ALD-forum yahoogroup.

UPDATE:

• Liberty Dollar Wins Grand Prize For Security Printing


• Liberty Dollar Says NO To The US Mint


• NORFED FIRES BACK

BACKDATE: US MINT Claims NORFED Are Federal Criminals