Hacker News Reader

Comment by nika | Hacker News Reader

The first definition of coin: "a piece of metal stamped and issued by the authority of a government for use as mony"

These were not coins. They were not issued under government authority, nor were they represented as such.

Your pretend definition of what a "coin" is has no relevance in a court of law. They were printed metal tokens that had passing similarity to US coinage. The fact that they weren't issued by the authority of the government is the problem, not the solution.

That is the first definition from the dictionary definition. It is very difficult to debate an issue with people who are not aware of the basic definitions of the terms, and, despite their ignorance, make snide characterizations like "your pretend definition".

That they were not passed as government money is an affirmative defense.

That you idiots keep chiming in making personal attacks and espousing your ignorant perspective as if it was relevant is what makes this site pointless.

I'm not even involved with the Liberty Dollar. Why am I wasting time defending them against people with no integrity like you?

If I call my chair a "knife," that doesn't change the fact that I can sit in it. It is obvious to me - and, I assume, the judge who made the decision in this case - that the definition of the word "coin" in the law is not the same as the one you are using. That is, the law uses "coin" to mean a metallic object used as currency. Issued by the government or not is not part of the assumed definition. You can't sidestep the law by using a different definition of the word.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com