If you Like HowToVanish on Facebook then we will give you one of the $2-3 30 page Mini-Guides for free. Just send us a message on Facebook and let us know which one you want: (1) Financial, (2) Political or (3) Personal.

anne tompkins united states attorney

Liberty Dollar II – Did Prosecutor Anne Tompkins Violate Ethics Rules?

by The Drifter on April 11, 2011

Reading time: 19 – 32 minutes

Anne Tompkns’ Liberty Dollar saga continues. Since the conviction of Bernard Von NotHaus for his involvement, there has been significant discussion about that case, its merits, motivations and implications. Contrary to the reports of many commentators, the legal issue in the case was fraud rather than a tyrannical government unjustly imposing its will. In a follow up article Liberty Dollar Part III I will include a much more detailed analysis of the relevant law and  its constitutionality.

But there is an aspect of this case that has the stench of tyranny which I think a lot of people smell. The motivation of the United States attorney’s office, including Anne M. Tompkins, Jill Westmoreland Rose, and others, is much more suspicious.

It is possible that some of the prosecutors involved in the case have violated Rules of Professional Conduct.  A violation could subject them to professional sanctions and possible disbarment. They may have also defamed Mr. Von NotHaus. I am approaching this professionally from a criminal defense perspective and a plaintiff’s tort lawyer as if I were advocating for Mr. von Nothaus.

Prosecutors Made False Statements of Law In The Indictment

Prosecutors indict people who they think have broken the law. The indictment is the legal justification for depriving people of their liberty and property.

The indictment in the Liberty Dollar case (at paragraph 33) states:

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates the power to coin Money and to regulate the value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. Thus, it is a violation of law for private coin systems to compete with the official coinage of the United States. (emphasis added)

There is no basis in the law or anywhere else which can support the part in bold letters in any way.  I will compare the prosecutor’s false and misleading summary of the law to the actual law.

Monetary Powers In The Constitution

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution:

The Congress shall have Power … To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

The Constitution does not define what money, only that it is something that is coined rather than printed, but instead leaves that critical choice to the free market. On its face this clause gives the Congress the power to regulate the value of its own coinage, and that of foreign coins.  This section also goes on to talk about how Congress can legally define weights and measures like a foot, inch, year, pound, kilogram, etc. There is absolutely no mention of the ability of Congress to do anything regarding private coin systems.

Clause 6 continues:

[Congress shall have power to…] provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States.

This clearly gives Congress the power to punish counterfeiting the coins that they themselves produce, and probably to punish coins resembling genuine United States coins. Again, there is absolutely no mention of private coinage. In fact, the definition of private coinage is that it is not the current coin of the United States. Therefore, Congress has no authority over private coinage at all and neither does any other branch.

Robert Landis, a Harvard trained attorney and successful investment banker presented in 2005 at GATA’s event on American monetary jurisprudence.


The Founding Fathers were extremely serious about government officials being engaged in counterfeiting or otherwise debasing the currency. The Coinage Act of 1792 provides an excellent example of how these two clauses were implemented in legislation to answer the question of What Is A Dollar? and then provide a punishment for government officials, but not private individuals, involved in attempting to redefine that term or perpetuate a fraud on the market.

SECTION. 9. And be it further enacted, That there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, and copper, of the following denominations, values and descriptions, viz., …

DOLLARS or UNITS – each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver. …

SECTION 19. And be it further enacted, That if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse as to the proportion of fine gold or fine silver therein contained, or shall be of less weight or value than the same ought to be pursuant to the directions of this act, through the default or with the connivance of any of the officers or persons who shall be employed at the said mint, for the purpose of profit or gain, or otherwise with a fraudulent intent, and if any of the said officers or persons shall embezzle any of the metals which shall at any time be committed to their charge for the purpose of being coined, or any of the coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint, every such officer or person who shall commit any or either of the said offenses, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death. (emphasis added)

Archaic political and financial relics Ron Paul and the legendary James Grant, along with many others, have begun discussing this aspect of monetary jurisprudence in the public discourse. For example, James Grant suggested as a solution to the current financial and monetary chaos in his Wall Street Journal article Requiem For The Dollar:

Replace Ben Bernanke with a latter-day Thomson Hankey. Find—cultivate—battalions of latter-day Hellmans and set them to running free-market banks. There’s one more thing: Return to the statute books Section 19 of the 1792 Coinage Act, but substitute life behind bars for the death penalty. It’s the 21st century, you know.

Statutory Monetary Powers

In the present case of potential prosecutorial misconduct 18 USC 486 may also be applicable:

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.

Prosecutor’s Statement Of Law Has No Basis In Law

Even, assuming for the sake of argument, that 18 USC 486 is constitutional, which will be discussed more fully in Liberty Dollar Part III, there is no legal authority for “restraining the circulation of money not issued under its own authority.” 18 USC 486 appears to apply only to metal coins and not to other types of money or currency.

The Constitution clearly permits “foreign” coinage to circulate at the value, based on weight and fineness, that Congress decides. There is no basis for the assertion that such restriction is to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of the nation. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution or other statutes which even claims to give Congress the power to “restrain the circulation of money” not issued under its own authority, ie: private coinage and currency.

Therefore, the  assertions by Anne Tompkins have no basis in law whatsoever. We can only surmise that they were pulled out of some imaginary hat, or maybe out of somewhere else.

False Statement Of Law Stricken So Jury Did Not Rely On It

Fortunately, this offensive paragraph, and this paragraph only, was deleted from the indictment before it was presented to the jury, thereby avoiding the possibility to taint their decision with this blatantly false statement of the law by a United States prosecutor.

Anne Tompkins Repeated False Statement Of Law AND Fact To Public

Just when you thought the drama had ended,  the same false statement of law was repeated in the press release announcing the conviction:


United States Attorney Anne M. Tompkins
Western District of North Carolina


Fax: 704.227.0264

DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF MINTING HIS OWN CURRENCY STATESVILLE, NC – Bernard von NotHaus, 67, was convicted today by a federal jury of making, possessing and selling his own coins, announced Anne M. Tompkins, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. Following an eight-day trial and less than two hours of deliberation, von NotHaus, the founder and monetary architect of a currency known as the Liberty Dollar, was found guilty by a jury in Statesville, North Carolina, of making coins resembling and similar to United States coins, 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. The guilty verdict concluded an investigation which began in 2005 and involved the minting of Liberty Dollar coins with a current value of approximately $7 million. Joining the U.S. Attorney Anne M. Tompkins in making today’s announcement are Edward J. Montooth, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the FBI, Charlotte Division, Russell F. Nelson, Special Agent in Charge of the United States Secret Service, Charlotte Division, and Sheriff Van Duncan of the Buncombe County Sheriff’s Office.

According to the evidence introduced during the trial, von NotHaus was the founder of an organization called the National Organization for the Repeal of the Federal Reserve and Internal Revenue Code, commonly known as NORFED and also known as Liberty Services. Von NotHaus was the president of NORFED and the Executive Director of Liberty Dollar Services, Inc. until on or about September 30, 2008.

Von NotHaus designed the Liberty Dollar currency in 1998 and the Liberty coins were marked with the “$”, the word dollar, USA, Liberty, Trust in God (instead of In God We Trust) and other features associated with legitimate U.S. coinage. Since 1998, NORFED has been issuing, disseminating, and placing into circulation the Liberty Dollar in all its forms throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. NORFED’s purpose was to mix Liberty Dollars into the current money of the United States. NORFED intended for the Liberty Dollar to be used as current money in order to limit reliance on, and to compete with, United States currency.

In coordination with the Department of Justice, on September 14, 2006, the United States Mint issued a press release and warning to American citizens that the Liberty Dollar was “not legal tender.” The Mint press release and public service announcement stated that the Department of Justice had determined that the use of Liberty Dollars as circulating money was a federal crime.

Article I, section 8, clause 5 of the United States Constitution delegates to Congress the power to coin Money and to regulate the Value thereof. This power was delegated to Congress in order to establish and preserve a uniform standard of value and to insure a singular monetary system for all purchases and debts in the United States, public and private. Along with the power to coin money, Congress has the concurrent power to restrain the circulation of money which is not issued under its own authority in order to protect and preserve the constitutional currency for the benefit of all citizens of the nation. It is a violation of federal law for individuals, such as von NotHaus, or organizations, such as NORFED to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.

Von NotHaus, who remains free on bond, faces a sentence of up to fifteen years imprisonment on Count Two of the Indictment and a fine of not more than $250,000. Von NotHaus faces a prison sentence of five years and fines of $250,000 on both Counts One and Three. In addition, the United States is seeking the forfeiture of approximately 16,000 pounds of Liberty Dollar coins and precious metals, currently valued at nearly $7 million. The forfeiture trial, which began today before United States District Court Judge Richard Voorhees, will resume on April 4, 2011 in the federal courthouse in Statesville. Judge Voorhees has not yet set a date for the sentencing of von NotHaus.

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism,” US Attorney Tompkins said in announcing the verdict. “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,” 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.”

The case was investigated by the FBI, Buncombe County Sheriff’s Department and the U.S. Secret Service, in cooperation with and invaluable assistance of the United States Mint. The case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Jill Westmoreland Rose and Craig D. Randall and the forfeiture trial is being prosecuted by AUSAs Tom Ascik and Ben Bain Creed. (emphasis added)

Why that language was included in the press release is curious if not also nefarious.  Since it was stricken from the Jury Verdict Form therefore it could not have been the basis of the conviction by the jury.

In other words, it could not have had anything to do with the case.  Since it was included in the press release about the case, is Anne Tompkins asserting that it had something to do with this case? If she did, she made a false statement of fact. The materiality of these false statements of law and fact can be seen by their impact, which will be discussed below.

Other False Statements of Law

But Anne Tompkins did not stop there. It gets worse when she said in the press release:

It is a violation of federal law for individuals… to create private coin or currency systems to compete with the official coinage and currency of the United States.

This is an even more blatant and egregious misstatement of law. 18 USC 486 never mentions currency, only coins made of metal or alloys. As before, on its face it could not apply to other types of currency that are not metal coins such as Disney Dollars, Ithaca Hours, or Potomacs or the many other private currencies that have been and are currently in circulation. This statute is therefore clearly limited to metal coins and not paper or digital currency. It is a grotesque distortion of the statute to suggest that willing parties cannot use whatever medium of exchange they desire in a legitimate transaction.

Is Anne Tompkins Ignorant of the Law or Did She Knowingly and Recklessly Make False Statements Of Law or Fact?

It is Anne Tompkins’ job to know the law, especially the laws that she relies on to deprive people of liberty and property. Her false statements of the law demonstrate that she is either ignorant of the law or complicit in flagrantly disregarding it. In either case, she is potentially exercising her prosecutorial power with reckless disregard.

Just like Harry Connick ,Sr., these prosecutors will probably never be held responsible in a court of law for the serious damages that they cause unless they knowingly made false representations of law or fact.

Did Prosecutors Violate Model Ethics Rules

Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1 states:

…a lawyer shall not knowingly… make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person…

Anne Tompkins has a problem. She may have been ignorant of the law at the time the indictment was drafted, but it is hard to believe that she did not research the law and remained ignorant throughout trial. If she knew that she was restating the law improperly in the press release she would likely be violating Model Rule of Professional Conduct 4.1.

And it gets worse for her.  It is even harder for her to wiggle out of knowing that her statement of fact was false.  The court made a ruling on a motion to strike the offending language.  The prosecutor must have been aware of that.  To then issue a press release about the case which included the very same language that was thrown out and made irrelevant to the case is stating a false fact.  She must have known that this fact was false.

If North Carolina rules of professional conduct are similar to the model rules, some of these prosecutors could face sanctions and disbarment.

Did Anne Tompkins Defame Bernard Von NotHaus?

Defamation is, essentially, publishing a false statement about a person. In the press release Anne Tompkins said that Mr. Von NotHaus’ attempts were a “unique form of domestic terrorism,” therefore she published the statement.  22 USC 2656f(d) defines “terrorism”  as  “…premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets…”  (emphasis added). She admits near the end of the press release that Mr. Von NotHaus’ actions did “not involve violence” which, by definition, could not have been terrorism.  The statement is clearly false.  Mr. Von NotHaus is clearly the individual identified in the press release which was published to and read by the public.

Mr. Von NotHaus will probably not have to demonstrate any actual damages because “terrorism,” as defined by Congress, is a crime. Even if malice or recklessness must be proven due to the potential public concern in this case, it should be a simple matter. A prosecutor that doesn’t know the law that she is accusing someone of breaking is at least reckless. So Mr. Von NotHaus probably has a very strong claim for defamation against Anne Tompkins.

Anne Tompkins Had Improper Motive For Prosecuting

Ultimately, even if she did not know she was making a false statement of law it does not purify her prosecutorial motives. The language that she pulled out of a hat to summarize what she thinks is the law reveals her tyrannical desire to impose dictatorial controls over the medium of exchange used by willing parties in private transactions. This is the rank tyranny that everyone smells.

False Statements Are Material

The effects of Anne Tompkins’ false statements are incredibly profound.

1. It has lead to widespread misinterpretation of the law. There are some complex legal principles involved which most lay people, and some lawyers, have difficulty understanding. The vast majority of people reporting on the case, and many of the commenters on Liberty Dollar Part I, were obviously convinced by those false statements.  To make false statements about such a law obfuscates the rights of individuals.

2. Encourages invasive investigation and increased scrutiny of innocent people by law enforcement. The FBI has parroted the false statement of law issued by Anne Tompkins in the press release. Now, law enforcement will turn their efforts and resources to investigating innocent people who are guilty of no crime, but who the FBI incorrectly believes are guilty of a crime.

3. May effect market price of gold and silver rounds, medallions and tokens. There are millions of privately issued rounds, medallions and tokens in the US of original design (ie: not official currency of a government). The logical conclusion of these false statements is that millions of American citizens, thousands of coin shop owners, hundreds of websites, scores of private mints, and dozens of Chuck E. Cheeses are in possession of illegal rounds, medallions or tokens.

People who are under the impression that owning, making, trading or selling such items may be illegal may decrease the demand for those items which, everything else being equal, will reduce the price. Thus, every individual or business in possession may suffer economic harm from these false statements.

4. Leads to selective enforcement. When everyone is a criminal, government actors can then selectively enforce the law against people they find undesirable. In the past it might have been foreigners, minorities and commies. Now, it might be someone who thinks the Federal Reserve is a bad idea.

5. It furthers the gold price suppression scheme. By preventing the legal barter with gold or silver rounds, more people are use FRN$s to transact. This increases the demand for FRN$s increases their purchasing power. At the same time, it decreases the demand for gold or silver because it is made illegal to use in trade which attempts to eliminate competing goods in the currency market by introducing a barrier to entry with threat of prosecution.

6. Risk of prosecution for bartering with metal rounds, medallions or tokens. Like their warning to Liberty Dollar in 2006, these statements serve as a warning to avoid bartering with gold or silver. Now, prosecutors might be bold enough to go after anyone who barters with gold or silver, whether they smell of fraud or not.

The risk of prosecution to individuals bartering with gold or silver is much less than the risk Liberty Dollar faced after the DoJ/US Mint warning was issued in 2006.  That one specifically targeted a large operation that was very visible.  Plus, the smell of fraud that accompanied the operation made it a juicy target.

A general warning that applies to millions of unrelated people and millions of separate transactions will hardly incur the same level of law enforcement scrutiny over any one individual.  Plus, enforcement is impractical because detection of individual transactions requires many more resources than an investigation of a going concern.

7. Enterprising tyrants will capitalize on the zeitgeist to surreptitiously implement further currency controls. The US is currently under mild currency controls, which, even in their mild form, violate basic liberties and fundamental human rights. Anne Tompkins’ false statement of law might convince enough people to tacitly accept additional currency controls as legitimate and justified.

8. The constitutionality of 18 USC 486 is unresolved.  The portion that applies to coins that are of original design and do not resemble official US government coins is most likely unconstitutional. Since the Liberty Dollar conviction does not address the private coinage issue, we will probably have to wait until someone else is convicted on that issue before the law can even be challenged.

Given the nonsensical state of monetary law in the US, there is no way of knowing whether that portion of the statute will be declared unconstitutional or not. Unfortunately, that means that someone else using gold or silver rounds as a medium of exchange will probably be a legal guinea pig.


These false statements of law are very dangerous to the legal rights, liberties and fundamental human rights of every American citizen. The misunderstanding of the law that prompted my previous article What Liberty Dollar Should Have Learned From The Godfather about the actual legal issues in the Liberty Dollar case is evidence of the effectiveness of those false statements. I am releasing Liberty Dollar Part II because it is a potentially serious violation of ethical rules by United States prosecutor Anne Tompkins and should be dealt with quickly and justly. Liberty Dollar Part III will further assess the risk to individuals of continuing to barter with gold or silver by analyzing the likelihood that the statute is unconstitutional.

No tips yet.
Be the first to tip!

Support How To Vanish - Tip With Bitcoin


Find this post helpful? Please consider tipping with Bitcoin so we can continue writing great articles.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: The Drifter is a California attorney. He holds a degree in Accounting from the University of Utah and a law degree from California Western School of Law. He practices civil litigation, domestic and foreign business entity formation and transactions, criminal defense and privacy law. He is a strong advocate of personal and financial freedom and civil liberties. This is merely one article of 129 by .
Free HowToVanish Privacy Guide
18,972 random numbersEmail Email Print Print


{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }

1 StructuralEngineer April 12, 2011 at 11:53 am

Did you see what she/they did there? They ADDED words that werent in the US constitution! surprise, surprise huh?

We’re being “governed” by a District of Criminals.

Peace and prosperity, in-spite of the liars, hacks and swindlers posing as patriots.

2 Ron April 12, 2011 at 12:14 pm

I would change “and some lawyers, have difficulty understanding.”
to “and many lawyers, have difficulty understanding.”

This is a confusing subject that is difficult to quickly understand. About prosecutorial misconduct, you presented a nice analysis. If a few hundred people submitted a bar grievance, this could get some attention.

3 ArchAngel April 12, 2011 at 12:34 pm

Amazing that anyone would still be defending this scam artist.

Would you knowingly accept Liberty Dollar Tokens at face value?

Would you be willing to take the half ounce silver piece in place of UWS 25$ ?

If so, I would buy up all of the coins on the market and make a killing selling to you.

Liberty Dollar is a scam where dealers buy tokens at prices below the face value and spend them for profit.

Of course, when they spend them they have to dupe the persons who accept them. And a large part of how this can happen is the similarity between the Liberty Dollar Tokens and US Mint Coins.

Compare the classic Liberty Dollar $20 one ounce token to the Peace Dollar. The theme is identical. The differences few.

Next, why don’t you take up the case for Charles Manson?

4 robertsgt40 April 12, 2011 at 1:52 pm

Looks like they got the wrong guy. How about the guys that gold coated the tungston at Ft Knox and other places? The funny thing is NotHaus coins acually have value. The Fed just doesn’t like competition.

5 Ron April 12, 2011 at 2:41 pm


I would rather have Gold or Silver (pure) that holds it’s value, then the counterfeited FRN’s that the Bernak is printing. Every one he prints comes out of your savings, because your precious FRN’s become worth-less.
He doesn’t even need a gun.
Wise up.

6 ArchAngel April 12, 2011 at 3:01 pm

“I would rather have Gold or Silver (pure) that holds it’s value, then the counterfeited FRN’s that the Bernak is printing. Every one he prints comes out of your savings, because your precious FRN’s become worth-less.
He doesn’t even need a gun.”

If I am going to invest then I may buy gold and silver. But I certainly will not be buying tokens from Liberty Dollar. I already own a significant amount of Junk Silver US Coins.

If I am paying my bills I use US dollars because that is the legal tender here in America. It would be nice to pay my bills with other units, but that is the only thing any of them accept.

Under no circumstances would I accept Liberty Dollars under any terms other than spot market prices. They are worthless other than the silver and gold content.

Is the Federal Reserve Bad?


Is Liberty Dollar Bad?


Both Liberty Dollar and the Fed are bad. You cannot play the dichotomy whereby one side is bad which makes the other the good guy.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Both may be and are fraudulent systems.

If you want an alternative currency to use that does not break the law while allowing the foundation to be stable against inflation of the Fiat US Dollar then use US Mint Junk Silver and Gold Coins.

With these you can trade legally. And you only pay taxes on the face value!

7 ArchAngel April 12, 2011 at 3:10 pm

“The funny thing is NotHaus coins acually have value. The Fed just doesn’t like competition.”

Yes, the coins have value. The value is about 1/3 less than the value of the silver inside.

If you accepted these instead of US Federal Reserve Notes, at face value, then you were scammed.

You could have taken those US Federal Reserve Note to buy real silver Coins instead of those fake tokens.

And you would have received more silver for your dollar. And the coins would hold their value against dollar inflation. And you could use them for trade without risking criminal charges.

Liberty Dollar has no advantage over US Mint Silver or Silver Blanks.

In fact, LD tokens are worth even less than blanks because of the taint on every one.

8 daulman April 12, 2011 at 9:18 pm

“In fact, LD tokens are worth even less than blanks because of the taint on every one.”

What a crock of shit, no one was forced to use his money (and not buy regular silver). Nothaus was using real silver in his trade money, at current silver prices anyone who bought his silver ingots would be bucks ahead now. Minting your own coins is not free, but he knew FRN debasement would quickly overcome any premium the public paid for the minting. (which it has in the interval since the feds brought the case) The whole idea was to wake the sheeple up.

9 yah right April 12, 2011 at 11:19 pm

ArchAngel is clearly a mafia plant. whatever!

10 Bill April 13, 2011 at 8:16 am

The LD problem is that the whole marketing scheme was predicated on ripping off the final holder of the coin.

At the time when silver was around $12/ounce, merchants were encouraged to offer a $20 LD piece as change when the LD contained substantially less than $20 worth of silver, WITHOUT disclosing that discrepancy to the person receiving the LD.

Keep in mind if that end user did want silver instead of paper they could have taken a $20 FRN and bought a silver round or American Eagle for substantially less and still have a coin containing 1 oz. silver but had enough money left over (likely enough to buy another half-ounce silver)

11 Philalethes April 13, 2011 at 10:58 am

Thanks for these most interesting articles about this case; I look forward to #3.

While reading this article, I was reminded of yet another quote from The Godfather: “Women and children can be careless. But not men.” Clearly this woman has been very careless, and I wonder why?

Women and children can be careless, of course, because men will die to protect them — even from the consequences of their own folly. Which is what the men of America signed up to do, essentially, when they let themselves be cajoled into passing the 19th Amendment — and all its progeny, including the ever-multiplying “affirmative action” legislation of recent decades, which ensures that women will never be held to the same standards as men, though they must be accorded the same privileges, and given the jobs that men once held.

I’d bet that an examination of Anne Tompkins’ career would find at least one, probably several, occasions when her advancement depended on some form of affirmative action.

All this leads me to wonder if perhaps her careless statements might actually have been deliberate? Probably not on her part — frankly, she doesn’t look that smart/devious, I expect she was just reading her lines — but perhaps she was encouraged by higher ups to wax politically-correctly indignant? Why? Well, if Mr. NotHaus can indeed use this prosecutorial misconduct to reverse his conviction on appeal, all objectives will still have been realized: (1) Even if he doesn’t do time, Mr. NotHaus has already been well punished; (2) a stern warning has already been issued to anyone else who might be tempted to challenge the State’s money monopoly; plus a bonus: (3) it will then be difficult to make a martyr of Mr. NotHaus — apologists for the State can insist, “See, the system works!” (It sure does.)

Of course, such an outcome wouldn’t do much for Ms. Tompkins’ career. But her bosses, and their bosses, would hardly care about that; poster girl she may be for Women’s Rights, but to them she’s just another expendable pawn.

All pure speculation, of course…

12 Jeremy April 13, 2011 at 10:23 pm

STFU Bill and ArchAngel. You’re not convincing anyone. You’re just too stupid to understand what the face value was for.

Anne Tompkins is dumber than a hammer. She was just reading what they told her to. Now, when she’s attacked they can insinuate that we just hate lesbians. Mark Potok will say its typical of gold and silver advocates to be homophobic..lol

13 Ron April 14, 2011 at 8:11 am

Archangel obviously has not been to ebay to look at prices on Liberty Dollars. Just search NORFED and you will find plenty of them. You cannot buy ANY NORFED Liberty Dollar for face value. They have become the fastest appreciating collectible precious metal round in history. No less than four of the approximately 70 one ounce silver round designs they released are now commanding prices of $1000 or more.

14 retearcangel April 14, 2011 at 8:10 pm

Wait a minute, I seriously think that you are MISINFORMED”

I purchased 1oz round from one liberty dollar associate. I paid $10, face was $10 3 years ago, and now that $10 face value, 1 oz in silver is worth $35!!!!! So I do not know of how is a scam,,,,,,I actually bought 20 of these and my investment went up almost 200%!!!!!! because those silver rounds are worth now,,,,let see 20 rounds @(35 each)= $700, wpuuuuu and I paid $10times 20 rounds =$200. Not a scam after all…….and Bernard is right INFLATION PROOF, your money appreciates in value…..sucker

15 LD Supporter April 30, 2011 at 11:50 am

I believe that Bill and Archangel fancy themselves “jurors” in the courtroom of their own minds.

It really is fascinating to observe these armchair tools in action, as they vilify without fact, and slander with fiction.

Ultimately though, it is the court of public opinion in which truth and reality converge.

I will challenge Matt the Archangel, Bill, et al, to find me a REAL victim according to their definition of fraud.

Again, what part of Private, Voluntary, Barter Currency is so complex to comprehend?

You don’t like it, so stay away. You can’t resist though. Why is that I wonder?

In fact, the only people I ever encountered who were not rational enough to simply say, “No thank you,” usually turned out to be either coin dealers or U.S. Mint coin collectors who intuitively understood the threat which the LD posed to the FRN tax system from which they benefit.

All of my customers are sitting pretty, and the vast majority of my customers received discounts by ordering in bulk, such that the FRN price paid for silver at any given time between 2005 and 2009, when the last order of SLDs was produced, was in parity with the price a coin dealer would charge for a U.S. Mint Silver Eagle, and often my customers would do even better than that.

Hundreds of happy customers, and not one “victim” among them, according to the state definition.

Of course, they are all victims now, because the credibility of the Liberty Dollar as a monetary system has been maligned, especially for those still holding Warehouse Receipts.

For those trading on eBay, any losses due to credibility have been more than off-set through numismatic values.

Sadly though, the grand experiment of returning America to value, one Liberty Dollar at a time, was snuffed out, or in the words of fed.gov tool Anne Tompkins “infiltrated and targeted for destruction,” while still affordable as compared to the FRN exchange values of silver and gold today.

Again, it is imperative to differentiate between fraud and enrichment.

All of my customers have been thoroughly enriched, while the keepers of the fraudulent FRN have converted them into would-be conspirators and accessories for the heinous crime of seeking to protect our wealth from the insidous purveyors of the fiat “money” which is destined to destroy America.

The Federal Reserve System is the fraud!

16 Robert April 30, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Get her butt out of there if she acted improperly and made careless statements. These people need to realize we-the-people are in charge and there are a whole lot more of us than of them…

17 Livin Ittmann May 1, 2011 at 11:18 pm

Someone asked if I would be willing to buy Liberty Dollars at face value. I already have – thousands of dollars worth and the PROFIT has been AMAZING! One that I paid $20 for in 2000 has auctioned for over $550 on eBay! It said $10 on the face. Every person who I’ve tipped with them in the past has had the opportunity to make out like a bandit –yet LEGALLY! Consider, the solid (1) ounce Libertys I bought that said either $10 or $20 on the face are now worth between +200%-400% more than the face value!!! Thanks Bernard! We know you’ll win on appeal!

18 Gordon Davis May 4, 2011 at 3:45 pm

One misconception by the author of this article when he states “the Constitution does not DEFINE what money is” – he is 100% mistaken. Anyone can read it in the U.S. Constitution as Article 1 Section 10, states in part; “no State shall make anything but Gold and Silver Coin a tender in payment of debts” – in my opinion as a student of the U.S. Constitution for more than 50 years, this section plainly defines Gold & Silver coin as the only legal form of currency/money in the United States. Problem…if you want Gold or Silver the only way you can get it today in the U.S.A. is to go to a Dealer and purchase it with what the Government says is legal money today…”FRN’s” or Federal Reserve Notes! It appears tha the Government is the one Counterfieting our Currency by allowing a “PRIVATE” corporation (Federal Reserve System) to issue our currency with absolutely nothing of value (no Gold or Silver) to back it up! I herein rest my case.

19 Peter Courtenay Stephens May 15, 2011 at 11:26 am

The real domestic terrorists is the Federal Reserve and the United States Government in their hell bent for leather installment of a Police State on this nation and it’s people and the complete disregard for the Constitution and We the People.
Sic Semper Tyrannis!

20 Koichi Ito March 11, 2012 at 7:13 am

Evidence that Anne Tompkins knows nothing about U.S. Economy! And also she is no fan of Bernard von Nothaus and NORFED Liberty Dollar coins! Finally Anne Tompkins never collected rare coins and medals!

21 scottinalaska March 28, 2012 at 12:58 pm

After the “Godfather” article, which is worth reading, this offers a fantastic take on how our tax-paid prosecutors lie to us in plain sight. Yet, we miss it. Geez, I feel embarrassed for not looking closer. And whatever you have come to believe about the Liberty Dollars
or the man behind them, NO one was forced to use them. The choice was left up to the consumer to accept or pay with them. No harm done. Kind of like an America I remember – the market will kill bad stuff and grow good stuff…withOUT government violence.
We have witnessed violence to our founding documents, to our trade, to our freedom, and to our country – all done by those we pay to rule us. Sad.

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: