Gabi, I think you know already that when Ben Bernanke told Congress gold was not money, he was widely considered to be equivocating in order to cover for the fraud in which his organization is involved. That's the likely reason Ron Paul asked the question. It was a trap.
One of the major founders of the Federal Reserve, JP Morgan, after all, famously said that "Money is gold and nothing else." The FED has been considered to be in default, by many, since the 70s when they de-monetized gold.
People, like the judge in this case, (and you as well) tend to use "money" and "currency" interchangeably, while the technical definitions are quite different. In my opinion, Ben Bernanke was trying to "play dumb" by telling Congress that gold was not
currency, that it was an "asset" instead, when he knew full well that this was not the question that was asked.
It sounds as though Mr. Shavers tried something similar, by arguing that Bitcoin was not currency, when in fact the issue at hand is simply whether Bitcoin has value. And when the judge responded by saying that Bitcoin is in fact currency, he simply meant that it has value and therefore can be the subject of legitimate contract disputes or, in this case, alleged fraud.
Of course it's hard to know the exact context without a transcript or copy of the decision.
