Joa from Breaking The Flaw Crypto6 Jury Drawing

Today we get further confirmation from the governments own ‘victim’ witnesses that Ian’s not involved in scamming in any shape or form. We try and follow along with what the governments dirty tricks are and what the point of introducing certain audio and video clips are. The government touches on an “international” bank account, a threatening FinCEN letter, and a letter from Attorney Seth Hipple advising the church it’s not required to register as a money services business under state or federal law. The government has been kind enough to submit these documents to the docket for us so everyone can read them for themselves.

Also take note that the trial has been on hiatus due to Renee and lawyer falling ill, but it is planned to resume Monday December 19th at 9AM. The defense should begin introducing it’s own witnesses and evidence and likely get way more interesting. The trial is open to the public and supporters of the Crypto6 are highly encouraged to attend. The address of the courthouse is: 55 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301. Also note that you don’t have to come for the full day. It starts at 9AM and there is usually an hour for lunch with a conclusion of the trial day at 5PM.

Crypto6 Day 6

FBI agent from prior day takes the stand again and prosecution continues questioning the ‘witness’…

Crypto Church Of New Hampshire Questions

Certificate of invisible hand trade name document on screen

Certify’s nobody is certificate to do business as church of the invisible hand

NH Peace Church

7/22/2020

Document shown on screen: Trade name registration for NH Peace Church

Certificate of registered trade name: NH Peace Church

Showing drivers license and passports of Renee, Nobody, and others

[The ‘expert’ refers to “Word documents”, but humorously these are actually LibreOffice documents in a different format being shown on a computer that merely is associating them with Microsoft Word, yes, this is who we are suppose to be relying on tell us Ian’s guilty of some not-very-clear ‘crime’, all the while exposing their own ‘victims’ to ‘identity theft’… I’ll quote the word ‘identity theft’ as this is actually a fraud against another, not the individual whose identity has been used and moves the blame  or really liability from those accepting said documents to other parties primarily being the victims]

List of folders with bank names shown

~ 15 banks

GFA Letter

Suspected fraudulent activity, froze account, colleene

Has determined account has been used to exchange virtual currency for real currency

You may be a money transmitter

Document shown on screen: International Bank Application Ian Filled Out

International Bank Account Application

Q Does it say profit from bitcoin sales?

A No

[humorous cause it does say church investments which would include bitcoin ‘profits’]

~ 16 exchanged listed in folder on Ian’s laptop on screen

[really it’s the church’s laptop, there exists a double standard here and depending on when it is convenient for them to say it’s Ian’s laptop or the church as both have financial implications in legal land]

Showing church policies on screen

[verification and KYC policies which are done with intent to stop fraud, whether or not it works, these are the governments own rules for what banks have to do even if they’re not technically applicable to the church’s sale of its own bitcoin]

Shows document on screen which banks church has “broken up” with

~22 banks listed

~7 rejected in advance

~6 active banks

Exchange statuses

Ian OK at ~7

Colleen OK at ~1

~9 denied or canceled

[remember that what a bank can legally do or the risks thereof is not the same thing as what you can do as a customer thereof, so for instance, you might have worked in the sex industry 20 years ago, nothing illegal about that, it’s not illegal for you to open a bank account, but banks will likely cut you off because the banks have been threatened by a bureaucrat at the federal level via a letter sent to all financial institutions, this actually happened not that long ago, and as a result all financial institutions in the US cut off anybody connected to the sex industry- the letter used words like “sex trafficking”- but that’s merely code for anything connected to sex, you opening a bank account, them closing it, and you repeatedly doing this at other banks doesn’t make you guilty of a crime, and the banks generally don’t tell you why they are closing your account for liability reasons]

Now looking at downloads folder on screen

Third folder down is KYC folder

Q What is that?

A It stands for know your customer

[I wonder how she knows what Ian’s intentions were for that, though it’s almost certainly a correct interpretation of what he intended, you’d think they’d need to have Ian up on the stand to testify to it, not some third party]

Q What is the last folder?

A Telegram desktop

Ian recommendation file

Showing (Melanie Neighbours Tax Planning & Preparation) Unsigned/recommendation/certification of asset document

KYC Telegram folder shown on screen

This folder shows a list of peoples names with KYC documents in them

[yes, the government is exposing these people and putting them at risk of ‘identity fraud’ during the trial, none of it is censored, or more honestly the government is aiding fraudsters who need ID information like this in defrauding others]

[FBI agent is confirming what is found in KYC folder contains ID of people who testified as “victim” witnesses at trial previously]

Q Did you go through all photos of all people?

A Yes

Q What was the average age?

A 59 from 2020

[there were 4,000 transactions, and these was a TINY fraction, call me skeptical, it’s not clear if these were folks that the church was calling to do verification with which would also have bumped the age of these folks up, but even if it was the average age of those conducting 4,000 transactions suggests that you’re not allowed to do sell bitcoin to older people which just sounds crazy- you’ll note later though that the ‘red flags’- a government term doesn’t actually mean you have to stop a transaction either so if these are people who were ‘red flags’ and the church did do business with them after a phone call that would be identical to what the banks procedure if not more than what financial institutions do]

Q You found Patrick Brown folder empty when you got it?

A Yes

[thinking about this a bit this is what I’d probably consider remnants, just not in it’s better more obvious form, but basically it’s partial data left over after some task has been performed and only gives you a partial picture of things]

[It’s curious to note that it would appear they are trying to point out that Ian missed or lost records or something happened to KYC records assuming they’re not just stored somewhere more permanent elsewhere of ONE ‘victim’ which is interesting because later we also see the banks have lost data as well yet the government doesn’t make them out to be scum]

They are going through dozens of picture IDs to show the various ages of some of the people, but not all of the people in this folder

Of those they are showing it appears to be those in the 45-70 age range mostly

[something else to note here is that they are not all victims and there is nothing suggesting that these are all victims… rather the government is trying to show through implication of the fact that this folder had a lot of older people in it that Ian is somehow guilty of targeting older folks and working with scammers]

[weird fed church photo on screen in one folder but out of place, how did it get there? presumably it ended up there by accident, but it’s curious mostly just in that I’m not sure what federal incident the photo comes from, there have not been that many, but I guess there have been some other incidents particularly if it’s quite dated]

[it’s very apparent that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury buying bitcoin as an older person is illegal or should be]

Q Anything else you noticed?

A Buying on behalf of another

Playing audio exhibit from FTL

[unfortunately I wasn’t able to capture the episode this came from, it’ was a VERY brief cut of a show, clearly intentionally misleading although I’m not sure what it was suppose to show exactly]

Ian, Aria, Matt, and a caller talk about the Nigerian scammer

Ian “So you got hit for over $16,000?”

Ian “What was going through head?”

Caller “Never said to write no refunds”

Talking about man in the middle attack

[I’m not clear if this was someone who got scammed by someone pretending to be Ian online or what the case was, but I think that might have been what happened here, and the misleading part on the prosecutor’s side might be that they want the jury to think Ian was somehow actively partaking in scamming people and then talking about it on air with the victim of his scam?]

[I mean, it seems like what this should be showing if played and explained in context is that Ian is aware of and warns people about these sorts of scams, but this isn’t the defense playing this, it’s cut up by the prosecution with some sort of specific intent]

Good client bought on multiple occasions and was buying for good friend

All hoops for know your customer were jumped through

Ian “I generally don’t do third party trades either, but this was a good customer”

[aww maybe the objective here although poorly explained to the jury is the “third party trades”]

Q Is this what you saw?

A No

[this audio is undated, maybe third party trades became more common? it’s not like we have a ton of third party trades evidence here by the prosecution though anyway given only a small small percentage were shown of the ~4000 transactions]

[something else to point out is people don’t start getting social security until 62-70 depending on different factors and the average age was 59 according to the governments own math]

Q Was this person asked why they had so much cash they wanted to turn into bitcoin?

A No

Q Where was all this?

A On Ian freeman’s computer

[again, wrong, it was the church’s laptop, how can someone testify to something they don’t even know the answer to and while this may not be useful to the defense I’d still love to have asked the question what is your basis for claiming this is Ian’s laptop? it’s presumably the user name ftl_ian, but if that is the case then if I create a user called FBI can I claim it was the FBI’s computer when they seize it as evidence and try to use something on it from my house? the other thing is I’m pretty darn sure there were other people who touched that system here and there and I think this comes up somewhere too which begs the question how did you do determine who was the person who actively created a given document? etc]

Q How many did you interview?

A 30-40

[that’s a pretty big gap… ya think you might be able to do a little bit better than that as far as narrowing down the #?]

Q Did any not have third party involved?

A No

[so you selectively looked then… hmmm if you only look at x you’ll only find x, and I’m also curious what is mean by third party here exactly hmmm]

Q Are you trying to investigate one of the people in the Telegram folder?

A Yes

Q What makes this one different?

A We have his true name

[correct me if I’m mistaken, but don’t you have the true name of everyone? aka that is what is happening with KYC after all.. you’re getting a picture of both the ID and the ID next to the person for all persons in the transaction… and isn’t this the result of IDK Ian doing KYC and the church having a policy thereof which I think you already testified to here at this point in the trial ]

Q What has been different in these types of scams?

A Fake name, no ID

“in this case bitcoin clouds the money even more”

[but he got ID!!!!!! so lets get this right… he used a fake name and had no idea between the victim and the scammer, but the church got ID and it was a result of the raid and the church doing KYC that you got the ID? right? right ?]

A 2019 audio clip of free talk live is played

Ian “this show is generally got an older audience”

Ian “and also unfortunately the age of target scammer”

[it seems very much like they are trying to pull stuff out of context and are trying to suggest the church’s objective is to scam older folks]

Q What is in this folder?

A Signed agreements for assistant positions, termination agreements

On screen is an agreement between shire [free church I presuming?] and aria [reformed satanic church I’m presuming] for loan of $72,000, 50 BCH to spread crypto

A similar agreement is also shown that is signed between the shire free church and nobody

Play two related audios from BoA recorded call

[aka for quality and assurance purposes this call is being recorded … or something like that!]

Nobody: My first and and last name is nobody

Nobody: Actually fnk nobody

Nobody: Church of the invisible hand

BoA representative: How can I assist you?

Nobody: I’ve got an ongoing dispute with the bank for some time, you shut down account

Nobody: You still owe us $40,000

Nobody: Your belief is our customer defrauded someone else

Nobody: I would like a police report and full accounting of what happened with the money

Nobody: It has to come back or be explained

BoA representative: Ok awww….

[speechless]

Nobody: I do have a claim #, let me find my reading glasses

Nobody: I got church treasurer on the line

Ian: I got reference #

New witness

Name: Dannela Virel

Q Live?

A Portagon, Fl

Q How long?

A 30 years

76

2012 retired

widow since 2018

financial flanner

Q Dec of 2014 were you on a dating website?

A Match.com

I met Jerry Harmon and he worked on oil rigs

He lived in Raleigh, NC

We would Skype and text

Skype video site in beginning and then telephone calls later

Q Was an actual person on Skype?

A Yes

Yes, same voice as in video

Q How often?

A Several times of day

Talked about children, what he did in his time off, etc

Q You spoke to family too?

A Yes

A women claimed to be his sister

Q Did you make arrangements to see him?

A Yes, but when arrived was told to go to Alexandria, Virginia

Q Did you see him during your trip?

A No

Q Did he send you any gifts?

A Yes, but he didn’t know about them so it must have been someone else

[very bizarre, you’d think she’d just have said no if she knew they weren’t from the guy]

Q He’d send you photos of himself?

A Yes

Q His oil rig broke and asked me for money? Did you send money?

A Yes

I sent him wires from bank. I was given detailed instructions on where to send and what to put on the paperwork as dictated by Mr Freeman via Harmon.

Q What kind of photos were sent?

A Myself and ID/documents

Exhibit on screen of victim with ID shown

[aka the scammer’s victim, they’re not saying Ian scammed anyone, just that he worked with scammers, of which they have provided no evidence, and the governments own witnesses all testified to the fact the scammers didn’t work with Ian]

Q What did you send?

A I sent a photo to Mr Harmon

Q What is this photo?

A Wire transfer document

Q What does it say?

A I authorized….

[this is just a standard disclaimer that the church requires the deposit of cash or in this case the wirer of the funds to put on the receipt to ensure that they understand what the wire is for aka buying bitcoin, from localbitcoin.com or telegram, the username used, signature, and date, etc]

Q Date of wire?

A Jan 15, 2020

Q Sent to?

A Ian B Freeman

Q What is reference?

A Drilling equipment and virtual goods supplied to me by jerry

Q Date of 2nd wire?

A Jan 21, 2020

Q Did you know why you had to put rebeca down as to who you were buying bitcoin for?

A No

[ok, so, we’re all suppose to stop buying or selling bitcoin or anything else online because there are vulnerable people in the world? come on…]

Q Did you know what bitcoin was at the time?

A Yes

[I kid you not, she actually says she did know what she was buying at the time, but not who it was for]

Q Why did you use two banks?

A To avoid red flags

[doesn’t this sound awfully couched? How many times have you heard an old lady utilize the term red flag?]

Q Who told you this?

A Jerry

[I am skeptical here because I don’t think scammers know of or utilize this terminology ‘red flag’, but maybe I’m just not familiar enough with the scamming world]

Q Did you speak to freeman?

A yes

Q Did you call him?

A He called me, once or twice

Q What did he ask?

A If I wanted to send this money

[so this is evidence that the church’s policy was followed… when a ‘red flag’ occurs the thing a bank might do, but won’t do generally most of the time is take an additional step to approve a transaction or investigate and confirm… the government is evidencing Ian did more than the banks were doing and wasn’t even technically required to do it as he and the church are not a money transmitter and nor a financial institution that is regulated by the feds according to their own rules and of which the lawyers already had advised of]

Q Did Mr Freeman ask why you were buying drilling equipment?

A No

Q About what bitcoin was?

A No

The following day he said he was needing to pay tax at port so I broke up with him

Bank told me that wire was fraudulent and if you accept fraudulent wire you would be on the hook for it so I declined it

[I’m pretty sure she is talking about the scammer here given she didn’t have a relationship with Ian]

Q Where did money come from?

A Sale of plane, money I made, inheritance from mother and partner

Q How has this impacted you?

A Changed how I live

Defense Cross Examines ‘Victim’ Witness

The lawyer starts off with kind words saying “I was touched by your story”

Q This Harmon guy was a fabrication?

A Yes

Q You invested a lot in the guy not just money?

A I did

Q After one video did you preserve it?

A I have no idea

Q Did government ask for it?

A No

Q Charlotte was a setup right?

A Yes

Q You got to Alexandria you had specific place to meet?

A No

Q He never sent flowers?

A He never said that, but sent in his name despite this he seemed unaware

Q Did Chase bank advice this might be a problem?

A No

No one managed my money

Q They didn’t question what you did with your money?

A Right

Q You did wire with other bank to avoid authorities?

A Yes, Jerry said to

Q You never asked about Rebeca?

A That is correct

Q Two short calls with Ian Freeman?

A Yes

Q Asked if really wanted to send money? He was concerned?

A Yes

[ok, so red flag, warned, sent money anyway, exactly what the bank would do in most cases assuming they even went that far as the evidence shows from these government witnesses that the banks rarely questioned transactions]

Q Did he know who Jerry Harmon was?

A I don’t know

Q Did Harmon know Ian?

A He represented himself as knowing Ian

Q He represented himself as a lot of things that were untrue, right?

A That is correct

[yikes!]

Back to FBI case manager agent

Prosecutor asks questions first

Q Do you recall how much was being discussed?

A About $350,000 and $40,000

Q Documents found at radio studio?

A Yes

BoA audio played

Ian “My name is nobody and church of the invisible hand”

Ian: “So BoA decided they would close my church account, but decided that a wire was fraudulent so went to local branch and James Baker came (Aria) and he certified that it was not fraud and notarized it.”

Ian: “No one in your department indicated they got it.”

Ian: “You are sitting on $350,000 and I’d like to get that back”

Q Was that nobody?

A No, it was Ian

[just love this, cause he’s presumably authorized to speak on nobody’s behalf]

Search warrants for emails: shirebtc@gmail.com

From Ian to Chris

We don’t check it because vending machine is part of church and respect privacy

Q Letter say bank wants to know source of funds?

A Yes

Q Did he reply?

A Yes

Ian said: “We have received contributions from people in various parts of the US, is that a problem?”

Reply “No, not a problem”

Ian: “Are you referring to check that came out?”

Q Any discussion of bitcoin?

A No

One email says

“Never invest more you can afford to lose”

email (FinCEN letter):

Threatening FinCEN Letter Displayed On Screen

Another letter from Attorney Seth Hipple is displayed about how a vending machine is not an ATM and no KYC is required to sell crypto from ones own wallet.

Letter Written By Attorney Seth Hipple Explaining Why Church Is Not A Money Service Business

Another set of letters is shown on the screen  to at least one or more banks in an effort to find a less hostile bank and identify what the issue is exactly that causes banks to close accounts. The letter asks one of the banks is it threats or fines by government?

Plays video clip where I believe it is Ian talking about vending machine and explains that it is like candy, can’t be taxed, can’t be stolen, I didn’t ask permission to sell Bitcoin.

[note: Ian’s not required to ask permission to sell Bitcoin as prior letters from attorney clearly state no registration is required at state or federal levels within the context of the churchs crypto operations]

That’s it for day 6!

If you got this far you might also consider gifting Joa from Breaking The Flaw some crypto. He has consistently come out to the trial, drawn cartoons for us, and helped with making little protests outside the courthouse like that of last week an amazing success. No one here is getting paid to write these articles, take notes, make drawings, film, or do really any other connected activity. That means any fiscal contribution you might consider making to offset our, or in this case Joa’s costs to come out to the trial and produce these drawings for us is greatly appreciated.

Direct Your Crypto Gifts To Joa

Forensics Device Used In Investigating Ian’s Computer

Day 5

I actually was able to enter an entire day of the trial in one go! So there is no need to come back and read this story again. Read it from top to bottom for an as accurate as can be reasonably expected version of the days going ons given the court bans reporters from coming in with electronic devices such that the job can be done properly (and for that matter the public can hold the court to account when they misbehave).

~16 supporters at trial

New witness

Dustin Long

FBI agent

info technology sphere

digital forensics examiner

6-7 years

analyze digital evidence

BA degree

Cyber investigation specialized forensics

Training

12 week course covers how to use a computer, apple systems, mobile devices, and you must pass course and he did

[use computers? Ha? Maybe I misunderstood something, but you probably don’t learn much in a 12 week course anyway so maybe not if it’s just a broad overview]

Ongoing education

Q How many devices examined?

A 200 devices

Q Where do you work?

A New England Computer Forensics Lavatory

Forensically image device

I first investigate at date of search warrant

I look for devices at search location

Is called by others to look when a device is found to determine if a device should be seized

Recording studio in house photo on screen

[this is not the photo the feds used, but is a picture of what the studio looks like from one angle, from other angles you’ll find peace signs, shire society, and other church related stuff]

Agent identifies devices seized

Laptop, taken back laptop for review

Bagged it

Back at lavatory I imaged the laptops drive bit-for-bit

I removed drive from laptop, then connected to a TX1 portable imaging device

[Ever wonder what one of these devices looks like? Well guess what, now you do. The above picture is the same model the feds use and runs about $3,000… you can purchase these yourself if you got the cash for it, I’m not quite tempted enough to get an overpriced $30 card reader with a screen attached though else I might actually have picked one up just for the fun of it, but basically this is just a small computer with a card reader attached that copies the drive, with some write blocking functionality built in, ohh yea, I have a computer forensics background, feel free to ask me about slack space and all sorts of fun computer forensics terminology, and unlike these guys I’ve actually written the software to extract data from what amounts to unutilized portions of the disk which can contain remnants of what a system was used for at some point in the past, but for this reason I also am VERY skeptical of “forensics” experts who get up on the stand and talk about stuff they don’t really have a clue about, and build a case off proprietary tools that aren’t scientifically sound, and of which there is no complete set of source code for, thus you can’t even confirm with certainty that the device is working in the manor the manufacturer is claiming even if based on generally sound principles, for instance, a computer forensics examiner testifying that someone searched for “how to kill” utilizing remnants from the disk may not be able to confirm that they actually searched for how to kill even if that is what they’re testifying to because part of that might be lost, so for example someone might have searched for how to kill a mockingbird rather than how to kill and the forensics examiner can’t distinguish between one and the other, yet trials have hinged on little more than this faulty “computer forensics” evidence on many of occasions for lack of someone actually competent to argue or explain why the “experts” testimony is highly suspect and flawed]

At this point the investigator goes over the write blocker

A write blocker prevents data from getting from their system into the hard drive

[what he is trying to say is the write blocker prevents contamination of the evidence]

He finds a Linux encrypted drive

[I so want to call him out for this, it’s GNU/Linux!!!!!]

Linux is just different OS

[yea, this is pretty much how he said it]

Encryption prevents others from accessing the data

Q Did encryption stop forensics imaging?

A No

Q How did you confirm it is accurate?

A Via hashing

[this is kinda bizarre and wrong really because hashing it doesn’t have anything to do with accuracy of initially acquired data, but that initial hash can prove later that nothing on the drive has changed since it was initially hashed, but it can’t prove that someone didn’t tamper with it prior to the hashing occurring, say like while in transport, but this is suppose to be solved by the bagging and recording of the folks keeping track of the evidence, thus you can get someone on the stand if a question of authenticity comes up]

Q Hashing is mathematical algorithm that computes long string of #s, verifies bit for bit copy? If one bit changed hash changes right?

A Right

I contacted computer scientist who has experience with Linux encryption

New witness

Name: Nickiles Nathens

Cyber security corporation miner corporation

Previously worked for FBI

Work:

ID collection and analysis of devices

General specialist

Computer forensics

Computer scientist to solve more complex problems

[yea!!!!! we were successful in making the government actually do a little bit of work for once, though given the lack of real security it’s somewhat humorous they needed a specialist here to solve more “advanced” problems]

Forensic examiner follows scientific process for review of structured data

The witness got her undergraduate degree from a Florida university information systems with a concentration in security

[this is kinda funny, Florida is known for having some of the worst schools in the country, I guess that is how they ended up working for the feds though]

Certifications in CompTIA, SANS cyber digital forensics

[you come to me with a resume listing these certifications don’t expect a interview, these are the things that get you passed human resources in the corporate world, not a job]

Q How many devices?

A 300

Q Ians?

A Yes, from March 16, 2021 raid

[This is funny because in March of 2016 there was another raid with no charges brought and an attempt to ruin Free Talk Live and Ian’s reputation, that raid utterly failed to do that, exactly 5 years later they do another raid, most devices from the first raid were returned, no charges were ever brought, a lawsuit is underway to force the feds to return the remaining devices, something every lawyer is going to tell you to NOT do because this forces them to investigate something that they otherwise might not investigate ever, and to what benefit? It’s a 7+ year old set of devices stolen, maybe there is something, but is it worth spending time in a cage over? Basically the fact alone that there is a lawsuit evidence the feds corruption here, and there resistance to release the remaining devices is likely in order to try and have something to hold over his head and taint the judge, which they have already successfully done, to the point in which the judge instructed the prosecutor to go after Ian over charges that the prosecutor even stated were investigated and had no merit!!! You would think a judge instructing a prosecutor to hang a man from a tree and perform mob justice on them would get them some sort of censure … but well… not yet anyway… probably never sadly]

The government now shows a picture of a laptop on the screen and has identified it as ian’s laptop

[this is wrong, it’s the churches laptop, and the feds forced the church to hire a lawyer to get back a laptop from the 2016 raid that was stolen by them, whereas other devices could be obtained without a lawyer because they didn’t involve an entity of some kind, this double standard is quite curious]

After the seizure this examiner was asked to analyze a copy of the image

An examination workstation to examine the laptop image was used

Q What is Linux?

A Just another type of software

[I was expecting operating system, but really it’s the kernel, not an operating system, but these guys aren’t competent enough to understand any of this]

We did not know the password for the system so we contacted Quantico Virginia to do a password crack

[aww what? That’s a town in Virginia… presumably a government agency of some kind specialized to do this sort of thing, but who knows]

Several weeks later they cracked the password

[they supposedly used brute force which is possible if the password was week, which shouldn’t be too surprising, but they could have done something called ‘live forensics’, which at least back in the day was rare, but basically it involves extracting the contents of ram, and that forensics technique would have worked against a laptop that was powered on at the time of the raid and the length of the password would then not matter, so could Ian have done a better job? Sure, but if the objective was to make them work rather than actual security he did everything perfectly]

Got no errors on accessing drive

[aww trying to understand what the heck they are talking about here… why would you get an error on accessing the drive if you have the password? This might be a ‘forensics thing’ relating to ensuring that the defense can’t challenge the evidence later, but it’s weird too because they’re not accessing the drive, but an image of the drive]

We then inventoried user profile, docs, etc

There was one user account ftl_ian

[this is wrong, like really wrong, there are multiple profiles and accounts on a default GNU/Linux system]

I made a listing of all files, then copied to forensically prepared media

[ie they zero’d out the disk before copying the data over basically, it’ll be interesting to note the media used which I think I made a note of as newer flash based media doesn’t give you control over low level access to the disk which could compromise the integrity of the claim here]

Copied everything over then

Made a 2nd copy for case agent

Provided on thumb drive or USB media to case agent

[this wasn’t sufficiently clear as a thumb drive would be problematic assuming we mean some sort of flash, but USB media could be a traditional spinning drive connected via USB]

Folder, docs, pictures, would have been seen

30 years of resumes for instance

I verified hash of files to make sure nothing changed

[so this would confirm what was read from the original matches what is being read from the new media, so this makes sense]

Picture of files on screen of home folder

Text file containing an ‘audit log’: copylog_export_home_files

[that makes sense]

We now find out that there is a Seagate Backup Plus drive

[this drive appears to be utilizing a traditional platter which is probably good given the prior claims, but there may still be concerns given the proprietary nature of some components utilized within the device not to mention the operating system utilized to present that evidence]

New Witness

Name: James Rossell

Victim

Lives Rockford, Tennessee

Before that he lived in New Jersey

How long? 20 Yrs

72 years old

He’s been retired for 15 years

He was a firefighter

US navy 4 years

Widowed 3 years

Married 39 years

3 daughters

8 grand children

Retired at 55

Retired early

Q After wife passed away was there time you were seeking companionship?

A Yes

Q 3 years ago?

A Yes

Went on dating site for senior citizens and met someone on site named Maria Romeo

Q Were they a real person?

A No

[must have been a dang bot]

Q What happened?

A She constantly needed money for this and that, then flew to Asia to get her inheritance

Q How did you communicate?

A Text message

She recommended we move to site more private

Q How often did you talk?

A Daily, sometimes

Q Talk about?

A Her inheritance

Q Did you help her with that?

A Yes

To help develop our relationship

[hmm this is beginning to sound a lot like prostitution to me]

Q Was it romantic?

A No

[gee paying for sex without the sex, there use to be 900 #s for that, but maybe this is cheaper?]

Q Was there hope for a romantic relationship?

A Yes

Q What was your hope for inheritance?

A I hoped she would come to the United States

I signed paperwork to say we’d marry

Q Did you know tuegroing at the time?

A No

[hmm sounds like a Russian bride situation so stereotypical in comedies on TV]

Q After signed paperwork then what happened?

A To get inheritance you must pay taxes in Indonesia

 

I sent $103,000 to her from my retirement account, which was from life insurance

She setup account from bitcoin

Q Was your money in bank accounts?

A I had to move from retirement account to bank account and then have it wire transferred

Q Did you have communication with her while you were doing all this?

A Yes

Q Did you have to take photos?

A Yes, picture of self

Q Who asked you to take a photo?

A Marry

Picture of sign is shown on screen

~“I am certifying I am buying bitcoin via wire transfer from the church of the invisible hand and ftl_ian”

“I james rossel authorized and completed a wire transfer in the amount of 67,000 USD for purchase of bitcoin from ftl_ian. I understand this transaction is non-refundable

username jrosell”

[the summary of this he sent KYC or know your customer documentation to marry to authenticate his purchase was intentional!!! it should be hard to claim ignorance when you’ve signed a document clearly stating what it is you were doing and why… but the government is depending on the jury being sympathetic to the plight of these victims, but the problem here is that Ian and the Shire Free Church/Church Of The Invisible Hand are not the predators nor intentionally partaking in victimizing this man any more than the financial institution who wired the money on his behalf is… and unlike the bank this is far more information demanded than the bank, but even if, when a transaction was suspect Ian would go out of the way to find a phone # in the phone book and call the person to verify that they understand what they were buying… which is exactly the same sort of procedure a bank might do… but such a procedure doesn’t result generally in a bank stopping the transaction from going through anyway]

Q What did you tell the bank you were buying, bitcoin?

A No

[if you were concerned then why not ??? did you even question it???]

Q Do you remember sending the wire?

A Yes

Q Problem with wire?

A Yes, the wire was canceled because it was too large of amount to to charity

[this is humorous given what he does next and they let go through without issue, but chances are this isn’t what they actually told him anyway as these folks are well rehearsed by the scammers on what to say]

Q What happens after?

A I got called by Ian Fleming as to why the wire did not arrive

[this is probably a not-quite-accurate description of what happened as the church has a policy to call when a transaction looks off, not when a wire doesn’t go through, but you’ll have to confirm this with Ian after the trial is over, but do notice how the guy got Ian’s last name wrong]

Q What did you tell Marry?

A It didn’t go

Q Then what?

A She suggested I sent a personal check

A check made out to Ian Freeman is shown on screen

Q What did you do with check?

A I sent it to Ian

Q Why wasn’t it for the $67,000?

A Not enough money at that point so I sent $7,000 later once money was in account

[basically the guy had funds coming in on a regular basis from other sources, this wasn’t his life savings or anything like that, or at least financial worth]

Q Did you get bitcoin?

A No

[then why did you sign a document stating you were buying bitcoin????]

Q How did things end with Marry?

A I just ended it

Q How did it effect you?

A Taught me to be careful on internet

[hmm yea, we seem to need more of this if the world is going to change for the better… learning life lessons is somehow the only way people learn anything and it’s probably wise for us to educate people about scammers as soon as humanly possible, not wait till people are in there 70s… no matter what a government tries to do you will not stop scammers… but you can educate people and get programs setup to protect the more vulnerable via special accounts that limit spending to some percentage over an average thus ensuring control of their assets while still requiring a 2nd person like a guardian or financial advisor before a larger transaction can occur, and that might not stop all scams, but it would put a more significant damper on scammers taking advantage of vulnerable people without hindering the rest of society as currently happens]

Defense lawyer cross examines witness

Q you don’t know Freeman?

A One time, on phone

Q What was your conversation?

A It didn’t go through so I sent check

Q So Ian did not ask for check?

A Right

[wow, so it’s the victim that is proposing to send a check from Ian’s perspective!!!!]

Q You understand you were scammed, right?

A Yes

Q $67,000 right?

A Yes

Q How did you lose the other $36,000?

A Some sent to Marry

Q How long was connection?

A 6 months

Q It went in bits and pieces?

A Yes

Q So it was more than Ian?

A Yes

Q You have no idea who this man in the middle is, right?

A Right

Q The scammer had you on the hook for quite a while?

A Yes

Q Purchase were made at behest of Marry right? Not Ian?

A Yes

Q The only conversation with Ian was wire could not go through?

A Yes

Q Ian told you bitcoin could not be purchased if wire did no go through, right?

A Yes

[he admits right there he knew he was purchasing bitcoin !!! remember that these are the governments own witnesses, and the defense is only cross examining them]

Q Bank tried to straighten you out, right?

A Yes

[so, now we know both the bank tried to make sure he wasn’t getting scammed and Ian tried to as well, but neither attempt was successful at stopping the scam, and Ian had less information to go on than the bank did]

Q They tried to stop scam?

A No, they said it was not on the up and up

[hilarious, this guy is trying to make himself believe he is a victim when in reality it’s pretty apparent he knew full well what he was buying, he clearly knows what “on the up and up” means, and this is why it’s important to demand your right to face your accuser in open court, and not via some virtual video conference thing, because in court the jury, when not masked can see indicators that may indicate someone being less than truthful, and in this case we probably largely see it in the words too, but… none the less the point stands]

Q The same bank let check through even though they stopped wire to some purported charity?

A Yes

Q Same amount?

A Yes

[this is important because there is this idea that the amount itself should have set off alarm bells or a ‘red flag’, but the reality is a red flag doesn’t mean a bank has to stop the transaction from going through, nor a money transmitter, not that Ian or the church were either of these.. what this evidences is that the systems in place forced by government don’t even work and are basically utterly pointless]

Q Ian never pressured you to send check?

A No

Q Never threatened you?

A No

Q It was Marry who did it all?

A Yes

[so now we know, the bank nor Ian, nor church is the predator here, but rather a third party we can only identify because the church did know your customer and got a copy of the scammers drivers license or passport and it’s the government who is refusing to investigate the actual scammers]

Defense lawyer ends the testimony with “sorry that happened to you, thank you very much”

New witness

Name: Patrick Brown

Lives in Spicewood, Texas

18 months

Previously San Jose CA

8 years

68 years old

[notice he wasn’t 68 at time the time incident occurred just as the other ‘victims’ weren’t as old either, this trial is covering events from 2-7 years ago so the ‘victims’ were all much younger]

Employed? Yes

Lows Hardware: 2 Years

Q Working previously?

A No

Q Any prior work?

A Property management for 33 years

Q Reason you came out of retirement?

A Yes, I was scammed of 1.2 million

[note: they aren’t claiming the church/Ian scammed the guy of all that money, only some of it went through the Shire Free Church and the government isn’t claiming Ian or the church was part of any of these scams]

Q you saved for retirement?

A Yes

Q Was that all of it?

A Yes

Q Did you get an email that changed your life?

A Yes

Q Do you remember who it purported to be?

A No

Q Federal or state agency in email?

A Didn’t say

Q It said your social security was hacked?

A Yes

After talking to agent he suggested moving my money around to different accounts to keep it safe

Suggested different banks to keep money at

Q What did he ask you to do after opening accounts?

A Move money to new accounts

half a dozen accounts

Q After money was moved, then what happened?

A I’d go there and he would tell me how much to move

Q OK there wire to accounts in your name?

A No

Q You moved money when asked?

A Yes

and when money was moved I verify it was moved

Q Did you believe it was moved?

A Yes

Q What was goal?

A To make it safer

To accounts in my name but not banks I had one business with before

Q Then what? Wired money to peace church?

A Yes

Q Did you send pictures?

A Sent money to this person yes

photo of driver license on screen and passport on screen

Q Why did you?

A Because Bruce (aka bruce is the scammer) told me to

“I certify I am buying bitcoin from bombshell on localbitcoin.com”

Q Do you know what bitcoin bombshell is?

A No

[aww it’s someone or some entity, you at least must have realized that, right? If not you should be in a home where someone takes care of you, not living by yourself]

Q Do you know what localbitcoin.com is?

A No

[then why did you certify that you were buying something you did know what it was from someone you did not know??? this is just crazy]

Q Who told you to write those words?

A Bruce Williams

[effectively the government seems to think bitcoin should be banned because stupid people exist]

Q Did you write it was a donation?

A No

[Note: he did tell the bank it was a donation as that is why it shown as a donation on the bank document shown on the screen prior, this witness is unreliable]

Q Any phone calls about why you were making so many wires?

A No

[this according to the government should have been a red flag! But if the banks aren’t doing it how can a not-bank entity be expected to do it? And humorously when something was suspicious and apparent to the church phone calls WERE made to verify that people knew what they were buying based on information not from the scammers, but from the phone book, you can purchase a premium subscription and still look people in the phone book, it’s not just landlines as I’m sure many think]

Cross examination by defense

Q Town you live in?

A Spicewood in hill country

[this was kinda funny, he actually said that]

Account is in Boston

Q What did you have to do to take it [out] ?

A Bits and pieces

Q Did you have to talk to a person?

A Small amounts no, big #s yes

Q How about for $50,000

A Yes

Q What was going on?

A They would just approve it

[this is his bank]

Q The bank never asked why such a large amount?

A No

[remember that the government is claiming that a large amount is a red flag so… the transaction shouldn’t have been allowed ! Lets be real, banks aren’t actually required to stop a transaction just because it is red flagged as the government is trying to claim here as is evidenced through this and many other GOVERNMENT witnesses]

Q How much of scam came through Fidelity? How much of the 1.2 million?

A Completely (all of it)

Q Charles Swab next?

A Did not lose any from Charles swab

[this guy is an unreliable witness]

Q The transactions for Bruce came to $180,000 and the rest went somewhere else?

A Yes

Q How long did scam go on?

A ~6 months

Q Only 4 transactions to Ian over 7 days, right?

A Yes

Q So Bruce Williams is probably fake name, right?

A Yes, I mean I don’t know, probably

I wouldn’t do it again

[that’s funny cause you can’t do it again, you’re working at lows no offense to those working at lows]

Q You never checked with social security?

A Yes, never checked

Q Started with emails, right?

A Yes

Q He never said he was working an Ian Freeman, right?

A Right

[this is important because the government is claiming that while Ian is not the scammer that he worked with the scammers when this is so obviously false and every government witness confirms it]

Q Just what other transactions were taking place?

A The only reason I did was because Bruce told me to

Q Can you tell me what other scams were going on?

A I can only say they were going on at different times

Q You just don’t know where it went?

A Right

Q You did no get bank statements after six months?

A No, well, yes

Q You never talked to Ian nor got convinced to do anything by Ian or peace church?

A No

Q Did they investigate bank?

A I did not do it all at Charles Swab

Q Did you ask Fidelity why they did that?

A No, I was customer with them for years

Q Did you ever have contact with Fedelity with why transactions were occurring?

A No

Q It seems like you would do anything Bruce tell you to do?

A Pretty much

[I ask myself this- how to do you help people like this?]

New witness

Name Herald Jones

75 in January

[trying to make him sound older than he is]

Lives in Kansas City MS

Retired since 2003, but worked for 10 years before that

Family: yes, married

54 years

Separated for 2 years

Children 2

44, and 32

4 grandkids

Developer in real estate builder and inventor

Q Successful?

A Yes

Telecommunications hotel

Possibly biggest in midwest

Personally made 10 million

Pretty high risk tolerance

Some successful

Q Spring of 2020?

A Separated from wife?

Q Did you go online?

A Yes

Q Did you meet someone online?

A Yes, Natoshia

Q How long?

A Several months

Q What did she tell you?

A She told me she needed help clearing taxes and attorney fees to get 100 million inheritance

[ohh boy greed gets the best of em]

Q Did she have council?

A Yes, Rayman Miller

Q Did you meet Rayman Miller?

A No, just online

Q Who helped with financial transactions?

A Rayman Miller

Q Did you send lots of wires?

A Yes

Q Who told you?

A Rayman Miller

Q How many wires?

A 30-40

Q What banks?

A Bank Of Westin and Bank Of America

Q Did you get feedback from bank?

A Yes, they thought I was being defrauded

Q Did you eventually stop?

A Yes after Bank Of America closed my account

Q When did you get banking info to wire money?

A Rayman Miller

“I Herald Jones completed a wire in the amount of $8,000 to purchase bitcoin from…”

[note: this is more than standard operating procedure for people who sell crypto online… the church did MORE than anyone else try and stop scammers]

Q Did you ever get any bitcoin?

A No

Q Did you ever get any inheritance?

A No

Q What happened to Natosha?

A No idea

Defense cross examines witness

Q Ever meet Freeman or church?

A No

Q Total lost?

A ~$800,000

[remember that this isn’t all going through the church, this is just what these victims of scammers lost]

Q All had to do with Raymond Miller?

A Yes

Q Spoke with someone who claimed to be Raymond Miller?

A Yes

Q Phone calls?

A No, just online

Q Natosha?

A Just online

I got pictures

[now we really know what this was about!]

Q Any physical evidence she had inheritance?

A Yes

Q Ever have contact with a lawyer?

A Raymon Miller or I thought he was

Q How long?

A 6 months

Q Started?

A March 2020… actually April

Q Out of nowhere the money starts coming?

A Yes

Q Other things could have been happening before May?

A I don’t remember

[another unreliable witness?]

Q Was Ian Freeman ever mentioned?

A No

Q Any indication he was working with Ian?

A Yes, Raymond said

[aww yes, the person we have identified as the scammer]

Q Did you ever ask Ian?

A No

Q Did these banks tell you to stop?

A Yes

Q Did they tell you why they thought it was a fraud?

A No

Q Multiple transactions went through both banks before anyone stopped you?

A Yes

[red flags aren’t enough to require a bank to stop a transaction!!!]

Q Did they ask you what it was for?

A No

Q So someone was scripting you?

A Yes

Q Miller was telling you what to tell the banks?

A Yes

Q You would say what Miller would tell you?

A Yes

[this is the problem, no amount of screening is going to stop scams, and it will also hinder legitimate transactions if the sole basis is the amount of the transaction]

Q Freeman did not tell you what to say right?

A Correct

Prosecutor

Q You wealthy?

A Yes

Q Why didn’t you tell bank truth?

A None of there business

Defense lawyer

Q Do you know reformed satanic church or aria?

[he got this wrong, it’s the reformed satanic temple pretty sure, not that it really matters]

A No

[this was on the wire transfer document shown on screen in court so the person had to have told the bank that at some point]

New witness

Name: Melanie Neighbours

Age 36

Manchester

How long? 4-5 years

Before? Keene

Grow up? Louisiana

Education? Accounting JD 2013 law degree

Q Bar?

A Yes

character and fitness no

DWI between law school and bar

Q Moved to New Hampshire?

A Yes, 2015

Q Worked?

A Financial analyst

Q Met before?

A Yes, five times

Q Agreement with office you won’t be prosecuted?

A Yes

Q What brought you to NH?

A Politics [I think]

Q Political beliefs?

A Anarchist

It’s immoral to commit fraud and use violence and government does that, the non-aggression principle

Q Is that why you left?

A Yes

Most libertarians and anarchists are in NH

Q How did you find NH?

A Internet, websites

Q Where did you decide to move to?

A Keene

The more in system activism is in Manchester

The more activist or civil disobedience activists were in Keene

Q How did you decide that?

A Chatroom / Shire Society

Q Is it through that process you men Ian?

A Yes

Through forum I found a place

Q Where did you move?

A Moved in to Ian’s duplex

[this is humorous because it wasn’t Ian’s duplex and Melanie Neighbours darn well knew that, and we can come to that conclusion by answers she provides later that she is lying or at least missleading]

Q What side?

A Other side, not studio, aka Rich Paul/Nobody side

Q Who lived with Freeman?

A Renee a the time

Q Anyone else?

A Yes, different room mates at different times

Q What did Ian do?

A I know he ran radio show

Q What did you do?

A Taxes/accounting

[aww yea, barely, not sure she actually had any business and there is evidence the few inquires she had were not followed up on, though this wasn’t fully apparent until more recently]

Q Did you enjoy living in Keene?

A Yes

Q What was Ian’s show?

A Free Talk Live

Q Were you part of that?

A Yes

Q Were you paid?

A Yes, $20 / night

[this isn’t the full honest answer, there was a $20 / night stipend to cover gas/vehicle expenses for co-hosts, but this wasn’t a regular consistent payment and wasn’t even happening in 2016, it started sometime later on, this was utterly voluntary contribution by those who shared the same beliefs or at least purported to and that was advocating peace, and the way I like to phrase it is taking a stand against the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives, but it’s not really limited to that, but rather you are just shy of a pacifist with one exception, and that exception is the use of violence in self defense, even if you’re principally trying to avoid said violence or avocation thereof]

Q What was the show about?

A It was a show on philosophy / current events

[Really??? Lets check Melanie Neighbours version against what FTL’s site says the show is about rather than giving vague unclear answers:

“This show is about Liberty with a capital L. Free Talk Live is an open phones panel discussion with a variety of hosts. The hosts serve as a check on each other and bring diverse viewpoints to the table, while still all being liberty-friendly.

Our show is headed up by multiple ministers of the Shire Free Church and features various voices from New Hampshire’s liberty activist community. Most of our hosts are here in NH as part of the Shire Society or Free State Project.”

I hope it becomes apparent that we share a key underlying belief as best stated by the Shire Free Church website: “The Shire Free Church does not define a specific path beyond those parameters that must be your foundation: peace as your way, love as your guide, and liberty as your light”

It’s an interfaith church and you may have other beliefs, but peace is the foundation of the church and mission thereof. It even sates this on the website: “It is our mission, inspired by God, Allah, the Universe, and the inner light – to foster peace.” and one way the church does this is through spreading cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency undermines the governments use of violence. How you might wonder? It does that by reducing the demand for US dollars. It’s the increased demand by peoples usage around the world of the US dollar that fuels wars waged by the government against others overseas. The more demand there is the more dollars can be printed and spent. The less demand the less dollars that can be printed and spent without causing the collapse of the US dollar.

Is Melanie Neighbour’s being willfully blind? It sure seems that way given she co-hosted FTL for years. Was she always an informant? I don’t know, but she certainly seems to have become one.

]

Q Ian a permanent host?

A Yes

Q Others?

A Yes, Mark, Aria, Renee

[curious she didn’t mention Darryl W Perry who was actually a permanent host and I don’t believe Renee or Area are or were, but Mark was, and so was/is Ian]

Q Anyone else on show?

A Rich Paul and others

[talk about being coached on what to say]

Q Besides that any other jobs?

A Yes, mostly admin work, did pay co-hosts from wallet

Q Did you do from office?

A Remote work

Q Did you leave Keene?

A Yes, when I met my husband + for other jobs

Q Other work in Manchester?

A Accounting firm, warehouse work, and at some point to work for Mark Edge

Q Ian a friend?

A “Friendly acquaintance”

[this is just unbelievably insulting, Ian is the best friend she’ll ever have and likely ever has had]

Q Helped as bookkeeper?

A Yes

[this is an exaggeration of what she did from what I understand]

Q Did you use Telegram with Freeman?

A Yes

Q Did you get subpoena for Freeman?

A Yes

Chat between Melanie Neighbours and Ian on screen

I need to hire an accountant to certify me as an accredited investor to prove net worth. I don’t own things, but have control over 2.5 million.

[Ian is the minister of the Shire Free church and has control over these assets through that position]

Q When you lived at address did you see church activities happen?

A No

[Were you blinded by government money or something? What did you think was happening 365 days a year every night from 7-10PM eastern? I guess all those people going to the studio were just a figment of my imagination. I guess all those church events that CONTINUE to occur every week are also just a figure of my imagination. I’ sorry-I’m insulted. Ian should be doubly so.]

Q When was it a church?

A When he fought property tax on building or whenever it was convenient

He connects not having assets to being a minister

[first, the defense blows her away later.. but first something I want to make clear here, this was her exact wording, not some interpretation thereof… now you can probably understand why people are saying she is an informant.. she didn’t have to say this… she only had to tell the truth to retain her immunity that we’ll find out later wasn’t even needed]

Q Are you a certified public accountant?

A No

Q Did you write letter for freeman?

A Yes, $35 maybe

I charged $35 / hr except tax forms

Letter stated $3 million in cash and assets

Q When did fallout happen?

A Bail

Q Why upset?

A He said he was broke

I didn’t agree

[wow, really??? one look at his place you’d know this guy has taken a vow of poverty… not to mention it wasn’t exactly a secret… he had room mates, *had a bedroom* and shared a bathroom, the vehicle he drove was an older used vehicle, later replaced with another older used vehicle, Ian never spent money wastefully and even donated most of his personal wealth he did hold prior to the church to the church years before any significant sales of crypto occurred or of which the government is accusing him of having sold for that matter, not to mention the government had likely seized or froze whatever assets he might have had left during the 2021 raid, so even if he had something the morning of the 2021 raid he didn’t possess those assets when questioned]

Q Did you explain why you were upset?

A Yes, the letter was an oversight on his part

Q Did you take your negative statements to the internet?

A Before, not after

[aww what? This was definitely after the 2021 raid, but I guess she meant that it was only after talking to Ian during a short window when the court accidentally removed Ian’s restriction on talking to his friends]

Q Do you still remain angry with him?

A Yes

[ohh yea, this is apparent as hell, if not just entirely made up for the benefit of the prosecutors at trial]

Q What do you know about bitcoin business?

A There were multiple kiosks, actually bitcoin vending machines is what they call them I think, he was selling and buying from localbitcoin.com

[it’s interesting at no point does she correct him about this, it’s a church, I’d understand it if someone else who knew not much of anything said this, and ~1 witnesses said as much, but you Melanie?? sorry- you have no excuses, you can’t claim ignorance on this one… this was just too well thought out and orchestrated]

Q Who is Aria?

A Moved after me, was co-host of Free Talk Live, started satanic church, did various homeless outreach

[why do they keep saying church… hmm I’m beginning to think it’s my memory now, I’m a bit under the weather as I type this, but it’s reformed satanic temple anyhow, maybe I just wrote it down wrong…. I guess we should just be glad she admitted that she knew the temple did homeless outreach without the defense having to press her on it]

Q Did she do bitcoin thing?

A Yes, she handed out bitcoin to homeless people

Q Selling of bitcoin?

A Yes

Q Distinct from church?

A Yes

[I’m not sure sure if she means the temple here or the shire free church, because one would be a true correct statement, and the other would possibly be a false statement, though I question how much she even knew of any of this, first hand anyway, maybe she was told this by Aria]

Q Did Aria ask you to write letter for her?

A Yes, an asset certification letter

Q Where did you understand the satanic reformed church assets were coming from?

A Ian

[constantly misstating the name seems to make me think it wasn’t just me in note taking]

Defense cross examines or I should say destroys backstabbing lying government agent/informant

Q Law school, but no lawyer? Bookkeeping, but no CPA?

A Yes

Q Aria right: Not Ian?

A Right

[aww ok, so that makes it an oversight you both missed, it was your job to get it right and you failed, not Ian]

Q How I choose a bank, right?

A Something like that

[I think something is lost here in transcribing unfortunately]

Q Don’t get into conversations about use even if innocuous, right?

A Right

Q That is a video about what she said, right?

A Right

[ok, I figured it out, so they are playing a video of aria explaining how to sell bitcoin and do it legally while trying to make it look like she’s committing criminal activity, and the defense is cross examining her on that video]

Q Your an anarchist?

A Yes

Q And an atheist?

A I was

[she was a big time atheist, curious the change]

Q When did you become a non-athiest?

A End of 2021

Q Same time as bail hearing?

Q Why?

A One of my daughters had died before birth

I tried preying as my partner suggested

[she claimed her daughter had died as a result of the FBI prior, curious]

Q You were bookkeeper?

A Yes

Q You didn’t do bookkeeping for Ian?

A No

Q Minister married you right?

A Yes

[gotcha! Ha she’s forced to admit the church is real, or at least it becomes apparent that the church does in fact do church things despite her fraudulent attempt to claim it was fake]

Q You did bookkeeping for Mark?

A Yes

[Mark Edge is a minister of the Shire Free Church and one of the main co-hosts of Free Talk Live, although has been absent more in recent years, he’s still good and involved in the Shire Free Church]

Q Radio station?

A Separate thing

Q You knew Mark was involved with Church right?

A He was involved with FTL

[she tries to avoid admitting knowledge of the fact Mark Edge is a minister of the Shire Free Church which is just crazy because the show is under the Shire Free Church ministries and she already admitted that Minister Mark married her and her husband]

Q Was Mark giving to charity?

A Yes

Q You are aware that Ian donated to charity right?

A Yes

Uganda orphanage, 100 nights homeless shelter, etc

[notice when questioned she admits knowing of at least these things, but there are others as well]

Q You know they gave bitcoin to homeless?

A Aria was

Q 100 nights homeless shelter isn’t fake, right?

A Right

[ ~she’s grudgingly responding to these questions]

Q Upset he claimed he had no money?

A Yes

Q April 2021

A Yes

Q You don’t know his financial situation in 2021, right?

A Right

Q Did you know that dash is a crypto, did you know dash crashed?

A I didn’t follow closely, but vaguely

Q You don’t know if church was above or below water

A Right

[gotcha, yet you are getting up on the stand and lying to the effect he wasn’t broke when you could simply have said you didn’t know, no one told you to lie, I told you to tell the truth even if it hurt Ian, yet you didn’t, you got up on the stand and fibbed your way through it with the intent to hurt Ian, that is NOT something Ian would have ever done to you]

Q You have no idea he was in control of anything in 2021, right?

A

[I think she just doesn’t answer this one, she knows she’s been caught red handed]

Q You did not see a shrine? Is that something you have to have?

A No, it’s loose in New Hampshire

Q No symbol defines has to be a church?

A Right

Q Did he register as a church?

A He said he didn’t! But I since checked and he did

[curious, so does not registering make you not a church??? as I understand it one need not register and one can still be a church or other religious entity or group and didn’t you more or less just admit to this prior with it being loosely defined in NH?]

Q The last time you had an interaction was years ago, right?

A Yea

Q Why are you under speaking with a grant of immunity?

A Something my lawyer got

Q Were going to be indited?

A No

Q Was there something I should have known, but didn’t?

A I don’t know

[I think the implication here is that she was working for the government all along as some sort of informant and getting paid to do it]

Q What are you worried about saying?

A Allot about 4-5-6 years ago… I don’t keep track of every conversation

Q Did jury know your under some sort of pressure to testify?

A I think they said they weren’t planning to prosecute for anything

Q You got immunity for nothing?

A I talked to them

Q Yea, a lot of people talk to them

A Yea, I had to comply

[this is getting super intense in the court room]

Q Were you granted immunity because of something you did?

A I’m not sure

I didn’t get immunity until after these letters were handed over

Q You don’t know why you got immunity?

A That is correct

Prosecutor

Q Was lawyer concerned about lying in letter about church source of funds?

A Yes

[talk about being coached]

Defense

Q What were they going to charge you with?

A [She can’t answer this… deafening silence… then..]

I didn’t work with federal stuff

[whatever that means, probably referencing her law degree though and not having experience with federal cases]

New Witness

Name Carla Cino

Age 74

State NJ

Since 1975

Real estate broker

Still? Yes

Married? No

Children? Yes 3

Were married? Yes

How did end? Divorce in 2003

Q At some point did you meet man online?

A Yes, online 2016

Q Name? Fredrick Drac

We spoke back and forth and online, he was in Germany

Q How long?

A 8 months

Q How often?

A Multiple times a week

Q He need money?

A He said he had to pay a lot of money to pay fines due to oil tankers stacking up he said guard wanted $5,000 fine

Q How much did you send him?

A $100,000

[some people deserved to be robbed, ok, I don’t really mean that, but dang, I work too hard for money to send $100,000 to some random guy on the internet who takes an interest in me that I’ve NEVER MET]

Q Did he say he would pay you back?

A Yes

Q Did you believe him?

A Yes

for a while

He said he had an opportunity to broke bitcoin and could pay me back more quickly if I helped

[let me get this straight, this women worked with scammers and helped launder money yet isn’t being charged yet Ian Freeman, who is a saint is being charged????]

Q What did he want you to do?

A He said people would wire me money and if I forwarded to Ian he would make money

Q Multiple communications with Ian?

A Yes

Q What would he tell you?

A Where to send money and only for bitcoin

Q Reason?

A For rare coins Ian said. They [banks] don’t like to see bitcoin.

Q Why a lot of banks?

A He traveled a lot

[what? Maybe she means the scammer? Or maybe she means Ian went to the state house and other court cases… not really clear]

Q Did you ever speak Aria or Renee?

A No, just Telegram

Q Where did your funds come from?

A All over

Q How many times?

A I don’t know, but a lot of money over time, 2019-202

[I think they are talking about how many times did she lose money from the scammer]

Q Did he ever ask why you were buying so much bitcoin?

A No

[I’m guessing this is referencing Ian, but not 100% clear]

Q Did wires every become a problem?

A Yes, but they never said why they closed account

[this is actually a very common and honest answer and basically the same thing that happened to Ian and the Shire Free Church repeatedly]

Q Why did it stop?

A I had an account at a bank I had a good relationship with give me an article about Ian’s arrest

Q Did you get your $100,000 back?

A No, I didn’t get any of it back

[Soo let me get this straight, Ian’s not the scammer, but you stopped because Ian was arrested ? Does that make any sense to anyone else? Sounds like the prosecutor is trying to convict through implication rather than actual facts]

Q How did you communicate?

A Telegram

Q How did you initiate a transaction?

A I would tell how much and they would reply with bank info

[they put up a standard shire free church disclaimer and signed receipt]

Q Did Ian ask why you were doing this?

A No

Q Did he ask if it was your money or someone else’s?

A No

I sent this one to neighbor Aria

Aria said she took out loan on house so reference construction won’t cause a problem with wire transfer

[extremely misleading given she was writing on the receipts who she was buying it for which is by implication suggesting it was her money or at least money she had the right to control, and the construction was completely true, she did have construction done on her place]

Q Did it really have to do with construction?

A Ohh I don’t know

[soo it might have then???? really… come on… you got to have a better case than this prosecution… after a decade of investigation Ian and 3 incidents later, 2012, 2016, and 2021 you can’t make for a stronger case than this??? you guys had millions of dollars to play with to secure a solid case and with that kind of money you shouldn’t just have a chance of winning here, you should have been able to create evidence through trickery to get Ian to say something incriminating even if he didn’t actually commit any crimes]

This one is for Renee and I think that is his girlfriend

[she probably was told ex-girlfriend as by this date in 2020 they had broken up already]

Cross examination by the defense attorney

Q You don’t know who your friend was do you?

A Right, don’t even know if photo was real

[ok, so she doesn’t even know if she was actually scammed? Because no one has actually investigated the scammers and for all we know these folks all just went belly up and died]

Q Never ian though?

A Right

Q The guy taking advantage of you had nothing to do with Ian right?

A That is correct

Q Why did you continue?

A I thought he was legitimate

[she makes a good case or example for arguing that those with dementia should have their assets restricted, though I’d argue by way of voluntary consent, not government violence, and not restricted entirely, but limited to a certain percentage over the average to ensure that a scammer would need a guardian or financial advisor to sign off without actually restricting or being a burden on the vast majority of normal healthy adults]

Q Did he say he was in business with Ian?

A No

Q He never said he was in business with any of them, right?

A Right

Q Did you know Ian sold bitcoin?

A Yes, I suppose I did

[how many times does one have to write it to realize that they’re buying bitcoin???]

Q None of your banks warned you of anything?

A No, it was occasionally

Q So all different ways you’d use to send Fredrick money?

A Yea

[Fredrick is the real scammer in this case]

Q Is Frerick being investigated?

A No, not that I know of

Q Did they give you any info on Fredrick?

A No

Q They want to know about Fredrick?

A No, they were focused on Ian

[notice that in coming days they realize this is a big problem and get other witnesses to make probably false allegations that they are investigating some of the scammers, but it’s also possible the “investigations” just started hmm immediately following the testimony of these witnesses YEARS later and despite never having inquired with Ian or the church about IDK KYC pictures he ACTUALLY preserved for incidents that might occur just like this that could not be avoided]

Q Ian gave you his real info?

A Yes

Q Did you tell him why you bought bitcoin?

A No

Q Did you tell him you were into trading?

A No, I didn’t chat with him allot

Q So he would not have any idea then what you were doing with bitcoin?

A Correct

Q This Fredrick guy has been in contact with you recently?

A Yes, in fact just last week he tried to involve me in some other scheme

Q Has the FBI been doing the right thing for you?

A I think so

[if this isn’t evidence this women needs to be in a home I don’t know what is]

Q Did they tell you they would go after Fredrick?

A Not at this time

New Witness

MC

FBI agent 8 years

Apparently this agent was sequestered like presumably all the others were. That means she heard everything that was said by other witnesses in the case.

She testified before and was in courtroom.

University of Virginia masters

Police City of Charlesville

Los Angeles division

The DC attorney general detail to protect attorney general

Q Then?

A NH

Q Assignment?

A National security

Q Before?

A White collar crime

Q You were involved in this case?

A Yes

Q You came after search warrant?

A Yes

Q What did you do?

A Interview people

Q Role in computers?

A I reviewed Ian’s computer and 3 cell phones: Renee, Andrew, and Arias

Q What did you do?

A I reviewed kraken crypto exchange records

Q What was the first thing you got?

A Everything when done

Q Lets go through what you were able to figure out

IRS doc defining what a church is shown on screen from Ian’s (really the churches) laptop

Church does not have to withhold income tax for ministers

Q What is itbit?

A Cryptocurrency exchange

Q Who is passport of on screen?

A Renee from crypto folder

itbit non-profit organization document shown on screen

Q What church is this for?

A Crypto Church of New Hampshire

Q Who?

A Renee

Q Ownership?

A 100%

[this question doesn’t even make sense for a church yet somehow is suppose to prove something]

Q Source of funds

A Donations

Q Purpose of account?

A Invest in bitcoin

Q Is this document too in this crypto folder?

A Yes

statement of dissolution

Q Reason

A To reform

[I’m leaving out the folks it lists for privacy reasons, but it basically has ~4 people on the board of directors for the Crypto Church Of New Hampshire and anybody who really wants to can probably look it up anyway]

Q Do you recall Renee’s reluctance to draft letterhead?

A Yes

Q Did you find letterhead on Ian’s PC?

A Yes

[it’s a laptop, but whatever, let’s not quibble over the details]

Crypto Church of NH Document Registration Shown on screen

Apparently the government thinks having large amounts of cash makes you a criminal! If so come and arrest me! Note: Lawyers will say that having or moving large amounts of cash isn’t a crime despite what the government wants you to believe and it’s not evidence of ill gotten gain either. In this case it’s business cash of my company in my possession as I write this.

Crypto6 Day 4

[the accounting of Day 4’s trial has now been updated and completed, if you already started reading day 4 you can start off where it is noted below]

When passing through security and United States Marshals asked a question or two I said “I don’t speak to liars and thieves”, to which a Marshal humorously responded “You just did”, in those EXACT words. If I had been quick thinking I would have liked to have responded with “I rest my case”.

Today there were about ~16 freedom loving crypto6 supporters in attendance in spite of little advance notice about the fact the trial was now to be held on Fridays too. Previously we had been told or it had been implied based on the estimate end date and calendar days that the trial would not be conducted on Fridays. Apparently the court can’t do basic math.

Here is my Day 4 summary:

New witness

Name: Hope Cherry

Silverspring MD

Worked for agriculture federal credit union

Worked as the VP of security

Federal credit [something or other, possibly regulated by or some similar word] USDA

The credit union has 3 branches

Q What is a credit union?

A non-profit member owned financial institution

Q Smaller?

A Mine is

Q What is shared branching?

A As one does not have a lot of locations shared branch banking enables members to make deposits at associated credit unions

Q How do you use shared branch banking?

A Most use it for deposit and withdraws

Q What do you do?

A I’m a compliance officer

Q Bank secrecy officer?

A Make sure in compliance with law

Q Are you required to register with FinCEN?

A Yes

Q Do you have to have anti money laundering program?

A Yes

Q Do you have to have an anti money laundering program?

A Yes

Q Does it have a reporting requirement?

A Yes, anything in excess of $10,000

[what is interesting about this is that they’re not claiming he was required to register as a bank and money transmitters are regulated differently than banks of which they are saying is he required to register as, though the defense is claiming or will be claiming he was legally advised by state and a lawyer that the church was NOT required to register given the way the church operated its vending or crypto sales operations… it’s also important to note that if you are doing a check or credit card or something similar via a bank these things are not required of businesses selling stuff]

Q Anything else?

A Yes, also SAR

Q Like?

A If we suspect exploitation or elder abuse

Q What did you collect to comply with these laws?

A Name, Address, TAX ID, day to day transaction of the person

Q Do FinCEN give guidance on filing a suspicious activity report and what it is?

A Yes

Q How does someone open an account?

A Come in or online

ID, Name, address, tax ID, employment, use

Q Do you know Ian Freeman?

A Yes

Q How did he open an account?

A Online

Q Type of account opened?

A Personal

[something to note is that someone operating a business from a personal account is ok, one can also do business without registering a corporation, trade name, doing business as, etc, with some restriction possibly, but basically if you aren’t incorporated you’re generally a sole proprietor, but it may also be unclear what you should register as if you are another type of entity like a non-profit or a church]

Q Purpose listed?

A Household

[It is also the case that one might open an account for one purpose and end up using it for another, there is nothing indicating to the opener what a personal or business account are or which one to choose either or why in most instances but it also usually will come down to marketing of features even if, so one for example might open a business account if they do a lot of wire transfers because then they don’t have to go into the bank to conduct the wire transfer, but that will usually cost more, so you might prefer a personal account for a business if not much business is going to go through it, or only certain types of transactions will be passing through it]

Q Source of funds?

A $500k in transactions / month, location NH, it was unusual, and only application we’ve had from NH

Q Type of activity expected?

A Regular stuff, paychecks, bills, etc

[that is curiously maliciously answered response considering I know for a fact many small business are sole proprietors and will also use personal accounts for business, not just bills and paychecks, I both have had sole proprietor businesses and did work for MANY MANY other small businesses operated in the same LEGAL way]

Q Anything stuck out about this account opening?

A We checked into it and there were multiple inquires from other institutions

Q Example?

A Check tax ID correct, etc

Q If it was suspicious why did you open it anyways?

A This does not mean he is up to no good

[they are showing a bank statement on the screen]

Q What month was this?

A 2nd

Q What does ver. Mean?

A Verify account # is correct

statement shows deposits from all over the country

Q Anything suspicious? Did you file a report?

A Yes

[this is humorous because I also operated a computer repair business at one time with deposits coming in from all over the country… in and of itself this is NOT or should not be suspicious.. in my case contractors would deposit checks and cash into the business account once conducting repair work for customers and I’d then pay them per agreed terms for said work, and this is actually very common and there were far far far larger players in this field than me, in fact Dell did something similar for years, and other smaller players focus exclusively on contracting out repair work to third parties and then pay their contractors this way to such a degree they have custom developer websites and portals for it all]

Q Was there information from any other credit union(s) available?

A I asked others and got told they were seeing deposits and names of people making deposits

[Share branch deposit tick shown on screen with a $6,700 ticket]

Q What is this photo?

A I asked for a photo of the person making the deposit

[they bring up a page on screen from a currency transaction report]

Q What does this show?

A Someone other than the person owning the account made a deposit

[again none of that should be suspicious in and of itself, this is common with businesses for a variety of reasons, one is to avoid fees, wire fees have a $15-40 cost for instance whereas cash or check deposit is free and faster than mailing it and you avoid credit card fees, for years I paid a couple other small businesses that supplied my company with certain products or components used in products with a check from my bank, but I’d stop at their bank to make the deposit directly into their checking accounts as it was far far easier than mailing the check and cheaper than using a credit card and for that we would get a 1-3% additional discount on top of another discount we already got, my company sells computers and accessories for clarity on what we did/do aka ThinkPenguin.com ]

Q Did they get ID?

A Yes

[this is or was uncommon, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for ID to deposit money into someone elses account and this is not or was not a standard procedure at most banks, though it’s possible in recent years it has become more common, but based on what I’ve heard at trial it sounds like this is still rare, but done at least at one financial institution]

Back to statement on screen

Q Stop after 12/6?

A Right, and serious concern about source of money so we restricted account

This activity cause us to talk to Mr Freeman

I called Mr Freeman and he said he was dealing in rare coins

Turned out to be virtual currency

Drilled down and found virtual currency

[she’s admitting that Mr Freeman was not dishonest about his use of the account and told them what it was being used for when asked for further details here which is the exact opposite of the governments claims that he lied to banks, they may not have understood that rare coins is an accurate description for what he was involved in, but as will or was demonstrated through anothers testimony who better although still poorly understood bitcoin that bitcoin has the word coin in it and what makes bitcoin valuable is its rarity, there are only 21 million coins that will ever be ‘minted’, and bitcoin when explaining it to people is commonly explained by comparison to gold and silver in that it’s valuable because of its rarity]

 

[it’s funny how I had a similar banking situation for years and years and no one ever restricted my account or asked questions about it, now there was one difference and that was that I believe I was using an actual bank rather than a credit union for business at the time, but there was a time where I used a credit union too, and it is possible that they would have seen this as suspicious as running a business from a credit union account while possible is less common, so to them it might have been seen as odd by comparison to other customers, the reason it’s hard to do business with a credit union as a business is usually due to wire transfers having to go through a bank and thus you end up with multiple intermediaries where mistakes can occur in the wire process… I actually closed a credit union account after a few years because it was just too much of a pain in the neck because of this, though not all small businesses do a lot of wire transfers, so I suspect at least some small businesses still do use a credit union over a bank like I did for my business for a while]

Q How did you feel about this?

A It was a red flag, but unsure about it

Q Type of business when asked?

A Shire Free Church

Q Did you search for it?

A Yes, I found the church with a search

Q Make any conclusion?

A It was a little different type of church

We felt we were dealing with and he was not registered

[ while I can’t speak with certainty it is my belief that it was probably the case that the Shire Free Church was not registered with any government at that time, and at some point something did get registered because of this incorrect assumption by financial institutions about the law, or at least they felt obligated to see that a church was registered even if not because of their own legal requirements, and it’s my understanding that churches can’t be required to register with the government because of other supreme court precedent, but that doesn’t mean you can’t register either, and many churches are registered in one way or another with government(s) in the united states at I believe the state level]

Q Did you close his account?

A We suggested he close it or we would

Defense cross examines the witness

Q You are employed as fraud officer?

A Yes

29 years

Q He applied in his name?

A Yes

Q Not a fake name?

A Yes, it was his real name

Q Address?

A Yes, it was a real address

Q He opened for minimum amount of money like most people do?

A Yes

Q $55,000?

A It went to buy bitcoin

Q Made deposit and purchased bitcoin?

A Yes

Q When opened account some red flags?

A No clear cut reason to say no

[this was a simple yes or no question she answered with a sentence… she was trying to avoid giving the defense evidence of innocents here because what this shows is that you don’t have to refuse business with people just because there are red flags and not even financial institutions who actually have to register need refuse service, so that begs the question why should a church who sells bitcoin and isn’t required to register as a money transmitter let alone a bank have to… remember she is also competing with bitcoin and as a competitor she doesn’t want this bitcoin thing to take off because it puts them out of business]

Q When asked for drivers license he provided it right?

A Yes

Q he didn’t stop doing business right?

A No

Q He was compliant right?

A Yes

Q No negative balance right?

A No

Q All positive searches?

A Yes

Q When did you find out cash coming in?

A We have a report, but didn’t immediate stop it

Q Shared branch did business with victim?

A Yes

Q Was there a problem?

A Concern, yes

Q Shared branch bank allowed it despite concerns right?

A Yes

Q She still has money in her account right?

A I can’t tell you

Q This one isn’t in her late 80s or even 70s right?

A Yes, that’s right, she is in her 50’s

Q She was a school teacher right?

A Yes

Q Because over $12,000 a report was filed right?

A Yes

Q They didn’t refuse it right?

A Right

Q Did teller have any problem with 2nd transaction shown?

A No, not that I’m aware of

Q He gave account info on how to contact him right?

A Correct

[ at this point the judge criticizes prosecutor for wanting to censor his own evidence]

[Exhibit on email communications between ian and bank compliance officer shown on screen]

[It’s admitted for what they call a limited purpose]

Judge says ~“can’t be considered true statements, only to understand his point of view, and to round up and understand conversation”

Overview of letter:

Letter explains Ian is a minister of church and law does not apply according to his lawyers. He explains why he thinks the compliance officer is wrong to close account.

There is no difference between vending person to person and selling online.

New Hampshire says “we don’t regulate that”

[this is a reference to what the banking department of New Hampshire stated prior to the state removing their authority to regulate cryptocurrency businesses, meaning the state already wasn’t regulating even if the banking department had the authority to do so before the bill removing their authority passed: https://freekeene.com/2016/09/29/full-video-of-nh-state-house-commission-to-study-cryptocurrency-first-meeting/ ]

The letter says the church conducts know your customer and gets IDs of buyers to stop fraud that is rampant in the online world.

We confirm buyer knows they are buying coins.

[He uses coins in regular conversation and not just “rare coin” when convenient. I believe later on there is evidence Ian even goes out of the way to call customers that he thinks may be getting scammed to ensure they know what they are doing. So much for the claim he didn’t stop transactions that were red flags. Notice though that the credit union lady already said they weren’t stopping transactions because of red flags because that isn’t what the law actually requires.]

Q Is that an accurate letter?

A Yes it is

Q Can you recall attached letter?

A Yes

[the attached letter is separate to the email discussed above]

It was NH banking commission

[while I’ve seen this letter I haven’t been able to locate it online anywhere unfortunately, not on FreeKeene.com nor in the docket, but the letter exists and was displayed in court]

Q You did send his remaining balance to him?

A Correct, there was no suspicion of wrongdoing

[aww wait wait wait what??? didn’t you just close his account for some sort of wrongdoing? Now you are agreeing with the defense that no wrongdoing on his part occurred? What this is suggesting is that the reason they closed the account was of liability on their part, not wrongdoing on the Shire Free Church’s part nor Ian Freeman]

Prosecutor cross examines

Q Did you speak to victim?

A Yes

Q How did you feel after talking to victim?

A I felt she could be victim of scam

[notice we don’t have any evidence that she is a victim of a scam and I’m not even sure they presented evidence she was a victim of a scam here, though this case is so unclear it’s hard to say one way or another, lots of “evidence”, but much of it is to make you feel bad, not that there is evidence of a crime, or at least not of Ian Freeman or the Shire Free Church, and remember the bank let this transaction through too, not just Ian Freeman]

Judy admits in writing to Ian Freeman/Church that the letter is “compelling” evidence of his argument.

Q Do you believe he was honest after using personal account for business?

A No

[this is such a load of crap, people use “personal” accounts for business all the time and she’d know that as the compliance officer, a sole proprietor is a non-registered entity effectively that is representing themselves unless they have a doing business as, but even in that case they are still a sole proprietor and would normally likely open a personal account for business because of the way taxes are conducted even if they have a separate personal account for their business activities separate from their bills/personal stuff]

Defense cross examines

Q Ian wasn’t taking deposits right?

A Correct

Q It would be up to each branch to stop transactions right?

A Not as clear cut as that

[she’s admitting that you only have to stop a transaction if you believe it suspect, and even then not necessarily which backs up the fact that simply doing some amount of due diligence even if you can’t confirm someone isn’t being scammed is sufficient under the law, thus Ian calling people who he thinks might be victims and getting additional verification from them about the transaction is exactly the same level of compliance that the banks do, but unlike the banks he has no legal obligation to do it on behalf of the church because he is neither a financial institution nor a money transmitter under the law, and while this COULD be different for another business if operated differently that wasn’t the case here, selling your own bitcoin from your own wallet does not make one a money transmitter, but an actual bitcoin exchange would make one a money transmitter under the law because you are acting as middlemen in the transaction and moving money or value from one location to another or one place to another, this is exactly what the law says, and the church didn’t do that]

Q They don’t try and stop it?

A [Silence]

Q Ian couldn’t stop it right?

A Correct

[wow, just wow, remember that this is the prosecutor’s own witness and has come in with an agenda of making Ian Freeman look bad]

Q They [the teller] took the deposit right?

A Correct

Q They [the teller] had control over that transaction right?

A Correct

Q Mr Freeman wasn’t there?

A Correct

Q He didn’t see any tell tail signs of a scam, right?

A Correct

Q If red flags existed Mr Freeman wouldn’t have known, right?

A Correct

Q The only person who could have stopped it was the branch employees, right?

A Correct

Q Is it policy to return funds to illegal transactions?

A What were we supposed to do?

[she doesn’t want to answer this one!!! I wonder why]

Q Did you ever sit down with FinCEN?

A No

Prosecutor asks some more questions

Q Do you know what Ian said that led to these people to deposit money?

A No

[how about what the fraudster said if this was a case someone was scammed because Ian wouldn’t have known what they told the victim and the bank wouldn’t have known either, this is a man in the middle scam, it’s neither the bank nor Ian/the Shire Free Church whom are to blame]

New witness

Name: Bruce Sweet

US Postal inspector

Federal agent related to crimes involving US mail

He works with drugs, money laundering, etc

Q Was Ian investigated?

A Yes

We investigated a package going to the church at shipping shack mail box

It was addressed to the shire free church

We open’d it and found a galaxy s phone box with cash inside it

It had $4,000 inside it

Box was from same victim as prior bank victim

Defense cross examines

Q Was complaint from victim?

A No

Q Do you know what cash was for?

A Yes, bitcoin

Q Wasn’t for drugs, right?

A Yes, it wasn’t for drugs

Q Legal product right?

A Yes

New witness

Name Paul Priosey

US Treasury IRS criminal investigation special agent

14 years

Investigated potential violations of the law like money laundering

Based out of charlot Virginia

Previously based out of NY

Q Was Ian investigated?

A Yes

Undercover doing transaction with Ian Freeman

Q What did Ian use? [forms of payment presumably]

A It depends

Q What was your role?

A Conduct bitcoin transactions with freeman

Q How long was your part in the investigation?

A One year

Q Much of it in writing?

A Yes

Q How did you connect with freeman?

A localbitcoin.com

Q Who told you where to start?

A Yea, others

[transactions shown on screen from 2019]

confirms he did these transactions with ian on localbitcoin.com

Q Why did you ask Ian to do a transaction off localbitcoin.com?

A It was easier

[curious – so they aren’t suggesting doing it off localbitcoin.com is to hide some sort of crime]

Q Transaction size?

A $502

“video” pulled up of conversation on telegram

[the prosecutor doesn’t understand what the word means, but none the less telegram is pulled up on the screen]

Q Can you ID defendant?

A Yes blue shirt

[in the room he identifies defendant]

Q Why did you tell freeman wire to bank account wasn’t working if that wasn’t true?

A To get another bank account

[agent openly admits he lied to mr freeman, a red flag you’re dealing with an undercover agent and I have to wonder if Ian wasn’t thinking this too at the time because it’s rare for stuff to not work like this for no apparent reason, but stupid could also explain it]

[chat logs on the screen show agent tried to get ian to do an in person sale after making a series of cash transactions into bank accounts]

Q Did he ask about source of funds?

A No

Q He told you what to tell the bank?

A Yes

[The undercover talks about church events like social sunday, night cap, crypto meetup, new vending machine at thirsty own, does $1000 transaction at vending machine, etc]

Q Asks no questions about why you have so much cash?

A No

[does $1500 constitute a lot of cash these days? If so I must be guilty of being a criminal… there is I believe $8k in cash in my hand right here or thereabout I believe and cash isn’t a crime, and do you know where I got this cash? the bank, and do you know the upstream source of this cash? a legitimate business where I sell computers and accessories called ThinkPenguin.com, and do you know what a lawyer would tell you? Possessing large amounts of cash isn’t a crime! :

 

 

 

 

[Day 4 continues from here… ]

Q Where did you meetup?

A Central square

Q Who there?

A Aria, Ia, Nobody

Q Was it recorded?

A Yes

Q Was it clear?

A No enough

Q We have short clip, does it accurately report what was said?

A Yes

[They play the audio clip in court. It’s entirely unclear  what was said other than “I don’t know. I’m gay” which is humorously something I said in response to someone else. Pretty sure that doesn’t make any of us criminals unless they criminalized me when I wasn’t looking. The agent said something about “infiltrating” our group which is humorous as it is an open to the public group on Telegram or was at the time Monadnock Cryptocurrency Network, and now on Matrix.. this clearly isn’t the brightest fed in the room and it was repeatedly stated by us over the years that the room had or likely had feds it… not that anyone was doing anything illegal, but people should be conscious of the fact that thugs were lying in wait to pounce on folks for doing legal things…]

A chat log containing conversation with Ian is put up on screen.

“only suckers pay tax on crypto

Also how was I obligated to pay taxes created in the first place?”

More Ian quotes from chat log shown:

“they sent a threatening letter to cvm operators a year ago

we all ignored it”

[the interesting part of this is that the church and Ian ignored it because legal council had already been advised that the church was operating in a way that didn’t require registration, which of course the government completely ignores that aspect of it all, and is actively fighting to keep evidence of this out, though they failed]

Ian chat log:

“I can’t sell you crypto because you told me too much”

[this is in response to the undercover fed who pretended to be a drug dealer, and there is NOTHING wrong with what is being said as the law says KNOWINGLY, so once you know you can’t, but prior to that you can, this is actually evidence Ian and the church were not committing a crime even though he may have wanted to]

More Ian chat log:

“I can’t KNOWINGLY assist you with your financial matters”

[again KNOWINGLY is literally in the law, yet this is what the feds are claiming was a ‘wink and a nod’ that it was “OK” to buy crypto from him despite NOT helping him with buying crypto or other financial matters]

Fed asks “Why not?”

Ian responds:

“You told me you sell drugs”

“Money laundering is knowing of illegal activity”

“I advocate for ending the war on drugs and responsible use of various substances”

[The undercover fed pretending to be a drug dealer came to a meetup and recorded audio and video at meetup.]

The prosecutor plays a VERY short video clip on screen.

Video shows nothing Ian and him saying machine is still at thirsty owl.

Q Agent say “You can still use it”

A Yes

[this was false… wait till the cross examination … it gets interesting ]

Q What did you do next?

A Went to thirsty owl and bought $20,000 from machine

They show a receipt of the money bought from the vending machine on screen

Q What was fee?

A 14%

Aug 25, 2020(?)

Defense gets up and cross examines undercover agent pretending to be a drug dealer

Q Purpose of undercover is to obtain evidence of criminal activity through deception, right?

A Yes

Q Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not right?

A Yes

Q No problems nothing illegal about the first dozen transactions, right?

A Yes

Q Telegram used because it is easier right?

A Yes

[interesting because I half expected them to try and claim it was used to cover up criminal activity, claiming something about encryption, when in fact Telegram is NOT end-to-end encrypted, but they didn’t go there in this case like they have in certain other cases in the past 5 years]

Q Why didn’t you disagree with him if investment wasn’t why you were buying bitcoin?

A Because I have a strategy to get conviction

[hmmmm so you don’t care about how you achieve the results, only that you achieve results]

Q Did you want to be willfully ignorant?

A No, just following directions

Q He didn’t say you couldn’t ask questions right?

A No

Q How do you know that his intent was to donate part of transaction to church?

A I didn’t

Q Meetup wasn’t illegal right?

A No

Q Nothing illegal about being a libertarian crypto guy right?

A No

Q You wanted to do this to further the trust aspect?

A Yes

Q Your goal was to get him to do something illegal?

A Yes

[How is this not entrapment???? definition of entrapment: the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.]

Q You want him to slip-up and fall?

A Yes, depending on how transactions go

Q you did not correct anything, right?

A Right

Q Did he ever say he wanted to lie?

A If asked to tell then it was donation or investment

Q But you did not ask Ian why that was, right?

A No

Q Ian dropped from 14% fee to a 10% fee for you right?

A Yes

Q He wanted your legal business, right?

A Yes

Q If they didn’t like you no break right? [if he didn’t like you he wouldn’t have given you a break, right]

A Yes

Q If they didn’t like you no break right?

A It depends but usually yea

Q Before [he knew of your criminal dealings he gave you a] 10% rate, but not once he knew you were involved in drug activity, right?

A Yes

Q Once he knew he didn’t want to do business with you right?

A Yes

Q Even after you didn’t stop trying to get him to commit crime right?

A Yes

[there is an aspect of entrapment in the law that basically says the government can’t try and get you commit a crime you wouldn’t already have committed on your own, which is probably why the lawyers asking these questions, they can hang out with you, but they can’t ask to buy drugs from you, if you are a drug dealer, but if after befriending them they try and buy drugs from you- then it’s not entrapment- it’s something along these lines anyway- but trying to win a fight with the government over entrapment is hard as everything favors them]

Q Despite insistence you still tried, right?

A Right

Q “I can’t tell you you can do that”, he said that right?

A Yes

Q You asked him specifically about using machine, right?

A He said I can’t tell you you can use it

[the fed admits that he lied previously on the stand under oath and that Ian didn’t say he could use the vending machine]

Q He said he can’t deal with you any more?

A Yea, but he said knowingly

[aww yea, cause buddy, he knew you were a fed, and he was quoting a key aspect of FEDERAL LAW]

Q You did ask and did get answer right?

A Yes

Q You put money in machine and out came receipts right?

A Yes

Q When he wanted you it was a 10% rate and after what was it?

A 14%

[ie the vending machine was 14% and Ian was giving the guy a 10% rate up until he couldn’t legally do business with him any more]

Q You did it on your own right?

A Yes

Q And this is a guy who gave you a break when he thought you were legal, right?

A Yes

Q You speculated, right?

A Yes, but he knew based on prior conversations!

[referencing that wink and a nod comment he made previously]

Prosecutor asks questions:

Q You broke his rule by telling him what you do right?

A Yes

Q What did he understand your intent to be?

A Ian said “If you mail UPS or Fedex because private mail service they can open package, but if USPS they supposedly need warrant so probably best with track + signature required”

[yea, this doesn’t mean he thinks you’re doing anything criminal, it’s also protection potentially from companies one might not trust, and I’m pretty sure there was evidence presented to this end, but he was saying some people trust USPS over UPS/Fedex because supposedly USPS needs a warrant whereas the others don’t, not that he even thinks this necessarily, he wasn’t the one with this concern, you were]

Q Is it your experience when people talk about search warrants they talking about criminal activity?

A Yes

[everyone thought this guy was a fed, hard to believe anything from this liars mouth]

[actual friends were given way better in person rates too at certain points as low as I believe 5% at one point, which was also the normal in person rate people were charging, so the market rate at the time, I can’t speak to later on, which probably would have been higher, but I suspect it wouldn’t have been 10%, but still would have been lower]

Defense cross examines witness again:

Q You did break the golden rule, you said you do something illegal?

A Yes

Q If you tell the bank you are a drug dealer they won’t do business with you either right?

A Yes

Q UPS is different right?

A Yes

Q USPS is safer right? Protect by government, right?

A Yes

Q But fedex you don’t know who is touching your stuff right?

A Right

Q They might have a criminal record right?

A Yes

Q One reason to suggest USPS is because it is safer, ever think about that?

A No

Q Postal is more regulated right?

A Everyone has there preferences

[humorously he didn’t answer the question]

Q It isn’t illegal to mail cash right?

A Right, send whatever you want

Q Did you ever ask why USPS over fedex specifically?

A He answered in voice

Q He said search warrant right?

A Yes

Q Makes it more secure right?

A Yes

Q You said it was legal to mail cash right?

A Yes

Q To get a search warrant illegal activity must be suspected, right?

A Yes

Q It starts warning people of scams right?

A Yes

[they are referencing the signs a the crypto vending machines]

Q Did he tell anyone to scam, or he activity sit there and let people get scammed?

A “I don’t recall”

[wow-really? are you kidding me? Does anybody believe this liar? why would you invest in a machine if a person was going to do the job??? this makes no sense and I have a hard time believing a jury if they’re following this would believe it either]

Q He specifically told you he didn’t want to do business with you right?

A Yes

Q “I can’t tell you you can use it” right?

A Yes

New witness

Name: Renee Spinella

25 years old

Married to Andrew Spinella

Live in Manchester

Completed high school 2014

Employment history: waitress

Q Know freeman?

A Yes, a decade

Q How did you first meet him?

A I don’t recall

We started dating in 2014

Q 2014-2017 living at his house?

A Yes

Q Professional relationship after breakup?

A Yes

Q What is this agreement?

A Agreed to generally help me move on

[the agreement they are referring to was effectively a breakup agreement that provided Renee with a bit of cash to move on with her life and was clearly not something Ian had to do because of some sort of court order, but simply because he was a good guy and wished the best for her, and I think those around Ian also were aware of his best intents for her even if not this agreement]

Q You had separate agreement for shire free church?

A Yes, selling bitcoin

Q Were you charged?

A Yes to one charge

Q Do you have immunity here?

A Yes

Q How long did you do the job?

A 2017-2021

Q Did you write contract?

A No

Q Do you know who wrote it?

A No, someone from the church

Q How did you communicate?

A Text, telegram, signal

Summary of screen chat log or similar content: Renee was told by Ian to tell banks she traded and banks would assume she was talking about trading stocks and commodities.

[what is interesting about this is that the day of the 2021 FBI raid the half dozen different 3 letter federal government agencies were all arguing about what to call bitcoin… some were saying it was a commodity, some were saying it was a currency, some were saying it was a security… if the government can’t come up with a straight answer here why is this a problem?? ]

Q Did you sell stocks and commodities?

A Bitcoin is a commodity isn’t it?

[to be fair I’m not sure even Renee knew, but probably thought yes here, but given government doesn’t know how is this even a fair question?]

Q Why did you say in chat he was rich?

A People making normal salaries are rich to me, as I’ve always been poor

ItBit log shows they want money service business registration stuff if operating an ATM

Government shows Ian saying “fuck” in the chat log to the demand for money service business registration documents

[something to note is that most people hate documentation of any kind or having to provide it whether or not they doing something criminal, being disgusted by this is not evidence of anything]

Q Did you open accounts for Mr freeman?

A For the church

Q Did it seem like a lot of money or a bit

A “A bit”

Q Would Ian review chats for you?

A Yes

Ian helps Renee with dealing with banks, itbit, and others, and making letterhead for crypto church

They play audio of FTL show talking about Nigerian scam

[totally missed the point of this audio clip, I guess we are suppose to assume he’s guilty because he is aware of some Nigerian’s scamming folks? I guess you shouldn’t do business with folks in an entire country just cause there are some bad apples… but of course if we took this literally then no one could do business anywhere because there are scammers everywhere]

End of day 4!

[Renee gets sick so she isn’t going to be coming back to testify until at least day 8 of the trial (ie which will probably be 12/19/22 assuming she tests negative for COVID and is feeling up to it), but her testimony is not over, and the defense has not had a chance to cross examine yet either, also two days were canceled of the trial already due to her and her attorney coming down ill]

 

 

Melanie Neighbours On Witness Stand

Today was a very sad day. I heard from what I considered a good friend turn on another good friend during day 5’s Crypto6 trial. While I knew Melanie Neighbours had some misgivings I had never imagined that she would actively work against Ian Freeman let alone lie- or at least mislead a jury on the witness stand.

Shortly after the March 2021 raid we communicated a number of times and I said to her there were two things I thought she should do in regard to her situation. One was not lie even if it was to Ian’s detriment. Ian Freeman could take care of himself I said, and two, don’t do anything to incriminate yourself or even remotely appear to be partaking in any activity that might be perceived as not-kosher.

Alas- she seems to have at least broken one of these pieces of advice. Why? Over a stupid squabble? Some insignificant issue she perceived to exist? Well, unfortunately yes. There was a question as to whether or not a mistake was made in certifying Ian’s assets vs the Shire Free Churches assets and what was little more than a minor oversight she turned into a flaming drama fest on the stand.  As a bookkeeper she certified Ian as having ~3 million dollars in assets of one kind or another.

Not everyone whose taken the stand to testify for the prosecution has done everything perfectly. Being questioned by a prosecutor or lawyer can be quite nerve wracking after all! One witness who should have been favorable to the defense (though forced to testify against Ian Freeman) let (however unintentionally) the prosecutor lead her to a mistaken answer. That was correctly fixed by the defense re-asking the question differently. No hard feelings. It happens. The damage could be huge, but the defense fixed it. We’re all human.

This? This is going to take a lot more time to heal. That said Ian Freeman’s got one of the biggest hearts and I bet he’d even forgive you despite this attack. Maybe there is more to the story I’m not seeing still. Maybe this was the plan all along. I’m going to hope it really was just a squabble over some irrelevant detail, because the alternative is you are the biggest piece of shit Melanie.  If you were working for the feds all along you are lower than low and I will NEVER forgive you. Feds don’t deserve forgiveness. Anyone else… even the most depraved human beings I can forgive, but NOT people who create a living out of others misery.

I’ll end on a positive note. The Crypto6 protest went great! ~16 people came out to the trial today and ~50 turned up to our little protest outside the federal courthouse in Concord. The video(s) I recorded are below.

 

https://www.freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/dec-12-2022-protest-crypto6-federal-courthouse-concord/part1-dec-12-22-protest-concord-federal-court-crypto6.mp4

 

http://freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/dec-12-2022-protest-crypto6-federal-courthouse-concord/part2-dec-12-22-protest-concord-federal-court-crypto6.mp4

Crypto6 Trial Day 3

We had a turnout of ~15 supporters throughout the day. Not bad~ given we’ve got 10-14+ days of trial here. We’re up to maybe ~55 folks who have come out and supported (some may be on multiple days) so far. I want to say thank you to all those who have taken time off work (even if only for half a day) to come out and support Ian & the crypto6. A supportive community is one of the things that make living in New Hampshire like nowhere else.

One of the best parts of the day was when Mr Bitcoin entertained us in the morning by trying to enter the courthouse!

Here is the video:

http://freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/mr-bitcoin-denied-access-to-supposedly-public-trial.mp4

 

Here is a summary of the days goings on:

Prosecutor continues asking questions of the last witness from the prior day’s trial.

FinCEN employee Theodore Valahakis
Q Shire Cryptocoin operation directed at kiosk?
A Yes
Q Why was the letter sent?
A General campaign
It was to identify non-compliant businesses
The letter is not itself the registration requirement, and so a business must register whether or not they get a letter
Defense cross examination:
Q Jury should not assume Ian Freeman was placed on any notice by the federal government?
A Correct
Prosecutor introduces new witness to stand
Name: Kathryn Thibault
FBI agent
24 years with FBI
Prior experience: state trooper Maryland
Role: Supervisor
Based out of Knoxville, TN
Does polygraph work
Prior worked in Bedford NH
Worked on: Child exploitation & white collar crime, example: bank fraud, money laundering, and romance scams
Romance scams usually target people through social media where scammers befriend people and then deplete the persons of all their money claiming they need funds and the scams usually focus on elderly victims.
Ways scammers send money: Master card / Visa cards
-Cash transactions
-Wire money
-Personal checks
-Bitcoin
Money mule: a person who moves assets from those they don’t know for obstruction from other persons
Scammer grooms person to become mule
Then the mule moves money to another account
Hard to ID where everything is ending up
Q Part of Ian Freeman investigation?
A Yes
2017
Lead case agent till 2020
Did lots of interviews
Chats were not available while working on case
Ian Freeman’s PC was not available
I interviewed with people doing wire transfers for Mr Freeman
I based investigation on suspicious activity report
Q how many SARs did you review?
A More than 100
I did not interview 100 though
I focused on New Hampshire with only a few
Q Did you have another source of info?
A Yes, local police
Q Where were the victims located?
A All over the country
Q What was the average age?
A Over 65
Q Did the investigation involve banks?
A Yes
Q Another part of case?
[hmm she sounds coached]
A Kiosks
Q How did you find these Kiosks?
A Through online site coinmaps
Then I bought bitcoin at kiosks
Q Why?
A To see what was required to buy from kiosk and to see what wallet the coins came from
Q Was this your money?
A No, it was government money
Q Where were the machines?
A Murphy’s taproom, 101 local goods
They asked how much to buy and then scan for QR codes on phone containing wallet addresses
Then you feed the bills in and it sends bitcoin to your wallet
Q How long does it take?
A No very
Q Did it require a name?
A No
Q Did it require a drivers license?
A No
Q Did it require a photo?
A No
Q Did it require a phone #?
A No
Q Did you buy at a machine not owned by Ian Freeman?
A Yes, and it required a state ID, no prepaid phone # was allowed, and the owner communicated with the buyer
Q Was finger print scanner required on Ian Freeman’s machine?
A Not to my knowledge
Crypto vend rules:
1. Must use own wallet
2. Crypto is your responsibility to keep safe
3. All sales final
4. Do not tell our staff why you are buying bitcoin
Q Is that what you experienced?
A Yes
Q “If you believe something went wrong please contact us at”…
Witness identifies email in letter from FinCEN matches letter on machine
[note this is evidence displayed on a screen]
name on email of vending machine matches email sent by ian to free giveaway price winner
Phone # matches rules sign and localbitcoin data old phone #
[again evidence displayed on a screen]
I obtained a warrant for search of Ian Freeman’s residence based on this
The house is a duplex
73 is right hand side
73 is where Ian Freeman lives
75 is on left hand side is where Mr Nobody lives
Q Please describe it
A White structure, green, white

Special agent tivo
Q Were you able to ID a video from internet related to front porch?
A Yes
Q Where?
A On Odysee
Q Interview occurred after?
A yes
Q Did you watch clip of video?
A Yes
Q Did the full video have audio?
A Yes
Q Was freeman speaking?
A Yes
Q What is it?
A It’s a stop sign
It says stop and then “paying taxes”
[this has been on the porch as long as I’ve lived in New Hampshire since pre-2016 and numerous people have lived and rented here, this doesn’t actually tell you ANYTHING, but it is intended to bias the jury against the defense… in practice the Shire Free Church does pay taxes or the property would have been seized long ago]
Q What was on 75 side?
A Living room with kitchen upstairs
Q Any shrine?
A No
Q Any chapel?
A No
Q Any meeting rooms?
A No
Q Were others living at 73 side?
A Yes
It was a mirror image of other side, but living room was a radio station
[this is wrong, it’s got recording equipment for a radio show, radio stations require big antennas and all sorts of stuff you’d not find at this address]
Q Any shrine?
A No
Q Any chapel?
A No
Q Any meeting rooms?
A No
The prosecutor brings up a picture of the radio studio as evidence
On left is radio equipment, chair, documents
Desk is behind chair
Q What is procedure of search?
A Take pictures of house is necessary before conducting search
Then take picture when everything of interest is found
Everyone volunteered to help with search
[something tells me this was a paid gig, but on the other hand 365 days of criticizing the feds on Free Talk Live is probably is incentive enough, not that I’m unsure about them being paid]
If anyone has a question they ask me if we should take it
Photo shows folder and the folder has “FBI Crypto” on it
Another has “IRS Bullshit” on it
[this is weird, all it could do is bias a jury against a defense and has no value other than to show Ian Freeman dislikes the government, it doesn’t reveal if he paid taxes, but it suggests he was at least doing something in regard to government demands, certainly that isn’t what the government was trying to do with the photo though]
[humorously the photo also shows shire society and signers on it, a rosary, and peace signs hanging on the wall related to the church that is “fake”, but no one mentions these]
Defense cross examines witness
SAR report interviews Renee Spinella & Andrew Spinella
Q Did you link a scammer with Ian Freeman?
A No
Q Don’t scammers often team up with money launders?
A I don’t know
Q Did you know Ian Freeman required ID?
A I didn’t know that
Q How many devices did you try in state that weren’t Ian Freemans?
A Don’t know
Q How many require ID in the state?
A I don’t know
Q How many machines did you look at?
A I only compared Ian Freemans 6 and 1 other non-Ian Freeman machine
I looked on YouTube for how machines worked
[she has no idea how many if any require a fingerprint/ID]
Q You shouldn’t draw generalizations from 1 machine, right?
A I can’t tell you what to do
Q Do you know how long machine was at Murphy’s Taproom?
A No
Q Know of any complaints?
A No
Did not ask owner of bar about issues or complaints
It was not part of my investigation
“Don’t talk to staff sign” is shown
Q Have you seen signs like that before?
A No
Q But only looked at one other machine, right?
A Correct
Q Part of process to buy crypto was to agree to it, right?
A Not really
[apparently terms don’t matter if you don’t have to click an I agree button … so much for the internet full of privacy policies and other terms of service]
Q Sign though says that right?
A Yes
Q Are you able to verify FinCEN letter ever got to email?
A No
Q You were at the search in Keene on site agent?
A Yes
Q Was this a violent search?
A “officer safety”
Q Ian Freeman was non-violent?
A Yea
We know he was not violent
But but “lots of people had weapons”
And and were “coming and going”
Q Were people displaying weapons day of search?
A No
We had several months of footage from cameras focused on the house
Q You were spying on completely innocent people?
A We were checking people
Q Would you have checked my license if I had been there?
A Yes
Q Why was the specific day of search selected?
A Lots of people involved, coordination
Q Asked about shrine, does that mean a building can’t be used as a church?
A Well not that I would recognize
Q Is there something specific that makes it a church?
A No
[wow- so umm it could be a church then????]
Q You heard of radio ministries right?
A Yes
Q Ian filed a form for religious purposes?
A Yes, but it had a PO Box on it
[this is wrong, it had a mailing address similar to a PO box though]
Q How long did the search take?
A The whole day
Q How did you search?
A Used a swat team
“gave opportunity to leave on own”
“they did not exit on own”
Q What time was the search taking place?
A 6AM it was, dark out
Q People are generally still asleep at that hour right?
A Yes
Q Before searching did you do due diligence and know who was coming and going? Did you do a criminal background check on residents?
A On some
Q No record and has right to carry?
A Ian freeman had no felonies
Q Did he have firearm?
A No
Q Matt roach?
A no felonies either
Nobody had criminal record
Q You know who would be there right?
A No
[At 6am??? If this was a 6PM raid, ok, but after 5 year investigation they know exactly who is home at 6AM, maybe she is a liar, or just incompetent, but either way I sure hope this came off right to the jury as one or the other or both]
Q Does the Freeman house have security cameras with the ability to video record?
A Yes
Q Did you know agents tried to destroy his cameras?
A I know they attempted to disable
[they showed video of them intentionally damaging the cameras, not disabling them]
Q What is a bearcat?
A It’s an armored vehicle used by police for tactical purposes
[yea, sourced from the military and designed for the military no thanks to government programs]
Q Is that what is in the video?
A Yes
Q How many people from swat team were there?
A I don’t know
[there were 56 FBI agents there according to the prosecutor from one of the very first hearings]
They play a video of explosives being thrown at window

Q What were tact team equipped with?
A Shields…
Q Looks like automatic weapon, no?
A Yes
[conveniently failing to mention the most obvious stuff from the video]
Q How many agents? 6?
A Yes
Q What did agent rip down?
A That was for officer safety!
I don’t know what that was
[they ripped down a peace sign, but she conveniently won’t admit what it was.. seems to be a pattern here of the government agents not recognizing stuff indicative of a ministry]
Q Any indication that there was any verbal resistance?
A I don’t know
Q Any reports of threats?
A Not that I know of
Video of Mr Nobody is played for court
Q Any firearms or weapons?
A It does not appear in that frame
[what about the other frames??]
Video of Matt coming out of house is played for court
Q What is Matt Roach’s attire?
A He is in a t-shirt and has no shoes on
Q Any resistance from Matt?
A No
Video of Ian coming out is played for court
Q What is Ian Freeman’s attire?
A Sweatshirt
Q Who is with him?
A Dog
[I guess Ian Freeman wasn’t about to let them shoot the dog, he’s holding him in the video as he comes out, certainly to protect him from the police as they like to shoot dogs]
Video of Bonnie coming out is played for court
Q The one you weren’t sure was there?
A Yea
[this women interrogated Bonnie and lied about it on the stand for some reason or other]
Q Does she have anything on feet?
A I can’t see in this frame
[how convenient, she’s avoiding answering the question, Bonnie was barefoot and made to put on shoes with glass in them]
Q Any indication of resistance?
A No
They play a video of an agent attempting to and actually destroying a camera with what was I believe an automatic firearm
Q What is agent doing?
A Disabling camera
Q Is this standard procedure?
A I’m not on swat team so I wouldn’t know
Q Might be that they didn’t want to see people like a jury seeing them do bad stuff?
A We are professionals!
[she acts all shocked!]
[ room laughs hysterically given we’ve all just watched video of them behave unprofessionally and then lie about it, the judge however erupts in anger at the courtroom because of automatic reactions people have when other people say absolutely batshit crazy stuff, at least some of this video including the FBI destroying the camera is posted publicly and available at TheCrypto6.com or on odysee directly at https://odysee.com/$/embed/FBI-Raids-FTL-2021/beccf363b14222723dde8bad26f18c4ed3a0136b?r=uzeVx1wy6w7bXhFWKiHNnHAiQvPfC7kA ]
Q What is that?
A Bearcat with battering ram
Q People already came out right?
A I wouldn’t know. I don’t know if this was cut.
[I’m not certain if this video is all at TheCrypto6.com, but it probably is and you can tell the order of stuff happening based on the time stamps on the video]
Prosecution now cross cross examines the witness
Q Was this the only search?
A No
Several other sites in state were searched
Q Did any others have swat teams?
A No
[this is interesting given that I’m 99.999% sure that other searches involved folks who owned firearms also which means “officer safety” was nothing more than an excuse to target the person they were really wanting to hurt, ie because Ian Freeman is behind Free Talk Live and Ian Freeman’s show has people on criticizing not just the government but the FBI, IRS, Treasury, and every other government agencies every night for 3 hours 365 days a a year on around 200 radio stations and then other outlets as well ]
Q Why swat this location?
A High power rifles and a full size sword
[what she is calling a sword was Mr Nobody’s gardening tool]
Q Was anyone hurt in this event?
A No
[this is actually incorrect, the victims that the feds were targeting were injured by the feds blowing in of a window and Bonnie or Ian’s girlfriend, now wife received aid after release from federal detainment, and the primary one injured was not involved in cryptocurrency sales or the reason for which they were raiding and no charges or accusations have ever been made about Bonnie during this investigation]
Q Where was the call out?
A It happened
[keep in mind they played the video which showed the FBI pulling up to the house and at no time did they call out unless a flash bang grenade is now what constitutes calling out]
“They just didn’t cooperate”
[it’s a few minutes after 6am so even if they had called out it’s unlikely anyone would have heard it given they were asleep, but I was not and fortunate enough to have good instincts and some forewarning and arrived before anyone inside new the feds were outside about to bust in, and I watched and filmed the whole raid from across the street, and then a block away and can attest to the fact that no “call out” occurred as was required by the warrant given it wasn’t a no-knock issued warrant]
Q Time?
A 6AM
Q Once the residence was secured what happens?
A Swat then leaves
Q What were you wearing?
A Cargo pants traditional pants
[I think what he was trying to demonstrate was just how cold it was outside and what outrageous conditions they made the victims of the raid suffer through, remember one person had no shoes on! It was something in the negatives, I want to say -20 below, but even if it was only freezing it was COLD and people were made to wait outside for a bit]
Q How far is Matt’s bedroom from Ian’s bedroom?
A Not far
A picture of matts room is shown to the court
Q You know what was found in matts room?
A Weapons, firearms
Q Do you see a bunch of weapons?
A Yes
Defense cross examines witness
Q You knew of Matt Roach before the search right?
A Yes
Q You knew he had no criminal record, right?
A Yes
Q You know he had a completely separate room right?
A Yes
Q There was a call out right?
A Yes
Q Do you know that dust or flakes are occurring in the video?
A I don’t know
[it’s a video that clearly shows a flash bang grenade of some kind being thrown at the house and going off]
Q Do you know if a flash bang grenade is a call out?
A No
[is she seriously suggesting she does not know if a flash bang grenade is a call out? If this doesn’t destroy her credibility with the jury there is no hope for a win at this trial]

[ Day 3 continued, as I ran out of time to include the rest of the the original story here it is below ]

New witness called

Name: Kevin Mccusker

FBI agent

Portland main office

2 years with this office

Prior he was with the Boston field office

His was part of the white collar crime squad

Duties included:

Gathering evidence and info and speak to witnesses about violations of federal law

[ I believe this is the defense cross examining below and the prosecutor mostly just asked questions about the guys qualifications above ]

Q Background info before volunteering?

A Yes

Q You aware of warrant

A Yes

Q Role?

A Assisted in search of residence

A photo of the studio is presented as evidence on screen

A crypto photo is shown

Q Did you hear anything?

A No

Q Call out?

A No

Q Flash bang grenade ?

A Don’t recall

Q How far away were you?

A ~1-2 blocks

Q How many total agents?

A “I don’t know”

15-20 maybe

The amount was appropriate based on the size of the search

[56 is the correct number of FBI agents according to the prosecutor from an early hearing, but there were many many more law enforcement agents and others there]

Q What does that window look like?

[This is a window on the Free Talk Live’s Studio of which they were raiding]

A Broken

Q Do you know why?

A No, not specifically

New Witness

Manchester Police Detective

Name: feather ? [it was hard to hear]

Patrol officer

He was on a task force for FBI: state st task force

It focused on drugs and violent crime

Q Sometimes you help other groups?

A Yes

Q Who did you help?

A Katie

Several search warrants

Where: 142 Chestnut Rd, Derry NH

Q Had info?

A Search warrant had minimal information

Photo of house shown on screen [like above]

Q Involved in swat?

A No

Looking for electronic devices

Found 2 phones

New witness

Special agent

Name: Scott Odonell

FBI Bedford residential agency

27 Years with FBI

Helping with search

“general review”

Information on what to seize

659 Marlboro St in Keene

 

 

 

 

[This is Aria’s house, a co-defendant in the case that took a plea deal]

The government put up a bedroom photo

Explained found cellular telephone on bed

The agent interviewed aria briefly

[ Aria was smart enough to be what they’d call uncooperative, providing no useful information voluntarily for them to use against her ]

New witness

Detective

Name: U Kaljita

Brookline police Department, MA

A detective since 2015

Patrol

Certified forensics examiner

Worked for computer crimes laboratory

Did cell phone and call line analysis

Qualifications included:

12 week course in advanced crime scene analysis

Learned about bitcoin

1. How to acquire data from difference devices
2. Continuing education
3. CCPA self certified basic and advanced forensics analysis

ID and preserve device in field

In lab same role take measures to preserve data

Specialized in general digital forenstics

Most common is cell phone

Examples ~1,000 phones

Certified in tool used with cell phone

Celltrack program used to preserve data and make human readable

Catalogs into pictures videos etc

Produces compressed image (cell brite)

Role: extract, process, review, and examine Ian’s devices

[this was weird, because it seems they are taking Aria’s devices and then saying they are ian’s not really clear]

Exhibit #1

hdd contains three cell brite reports

Did you analyze three devices maintained

Q Is examination similar?

A Yes, of Ians 3 phones examined, photo’d and assigned unique ID

Analyzed in Chelsea, MA

• no network
• take sim card out

This is important because people can remotely wipe phones

[wipe is another term for delete the contents of the phones, and thus evidence]

Q Next?

A Notes on devices

Q Then?

A extract data from device with cell brite tool premium

Q How do you know it’s accurate?

A Hash of data file alphanumeric value, like a fingerprint like 15- digits and can be longer but not sure how big

Q How do you use to know you made accurate copy?

A Check the values match

Q Did you check the value of all three devices?

A Yes

Cell brite physical analyzer

At first in digital format

Tool makes 1’s and 0’s human readable

ie pictures, videos, etc

Q Is that what can be searched?

A Yes

Q Is this like on phone?

A No

The government puts up a picture of photo data that has been extracted, or more like meta data, information about the phone

It includes same email as listed in localbitcoin.com data bitcoinbombshell user

I sent report to case agent

Q Do you get everything?

A Not always

We make a bit for bit copy

Q Can you get deleted data?

A Sometimes

I may have remnants of data but not all data

[ this is how people get convicted of murder when they didn’t actually murder anyone, those remnants of data may be “How to kill” but not include “mocking bird”, the one makes you think they searched for how to kill someone and if combined with the later just looking up a classic book ]

New witness

Chris Rietman

Q PA to NH? Why?

A It was more expensive to live in PA than NH, loss of rights

Q Why NH?

A I looked around country and found NH

Q Why NH?

[Notice the prosecutor here is trying to force him to say he’s a free stater because there are folks on the jury who indicated that they hate free staters yet still are on the jury]

A It’s the live free or die state

Libertarian

I’m not a free stater

Small L libertarian

A persons rights need to be respected

As long as you are not infringing on anothers rights you should be free to do what you like

Q Why Alstead?

A High speed internet and not too far out and affordable

Southwest NH fit the bill better than other locations

Q Did you meet Ian Freeman?

A Yes, when we moved

It was suggested we attend a meetup with a bunch of people

Q Is he your friend?

A Yes

Q Met a few times?

A Yes

Q You testify via agreement with government?

A Yes, for $40

[this was hilarious, the government was paying him to testify, hmm might bias him in favor of what the government wants him to say]

Q What have you been doing in NH?

• PC [repair?] work
• Routers to avoid government survailance
• Start business
• Route 101 goods llc
• Mighty Moose Mart

Q Who owns building?

A Rented from Shire Free Church Holding LLC

Q Tenent?

A Ian Freeman

Are you a member ?

No one has told me they are members of the Shire Free Church, but Ian is

Q You paid rent?

A Yes- gave deal on rent when starting business

Q Direction of chruch for crypto church of new hampshire

A Yes [I think]

Q Do you know religious principle?

A No

Q Have you been to a service?

A No

Q Did it stay 101 good till today?

A No

Q Why closed?

A People don’t buy gifts often

Changed to convenience store

Q Arrangement changed?

A Ian invested in business, yes, no rent if we kept space for Bitcoin embassy.

[this is actually an incorrect understanding of what the situation was… as a part owner in the business here I can attest to the fact that the convenience store rented a portion of the building from the shire free church, but as the shire free church was investing in the business too it provided the space at no charge… though this could have changed with some future negotiation once the business was off the ground potentially]

Q Was there a vending machine prior?

A Yes

Q Who was the owner?

A I don’t know, Ian operated it

Q Were you happy to have it on when you took over?

A Yes

Q Why do you like bitcoin?

A Not subject to whims of banks and politics, the dollar lost 98% of its value

Q Did you know bitcoin was pseudo anonymous?

A Yes, there is no name associated, it just works

No law can change bitcoin, it doesn’t care

Q Did you have keys to the machine?

A No, originally no

Q Do you know how it works?

A In general yes

Q Did you make video?

A No

Q Are you in video?

A Yes

[you can watch the video they played in court yourself here: https://freekeene.com/2018/08/19/how-to-buy-cryptocurrency-like-bitcoin-and-dash-in-under-two-minutes-in-keene-nh/ ]

They have terms of service of the vending machine blown up and on screen to read

Part of it said:

~”our staff don’t need to know what you use them for”

Q Video about dash?

A Yes

Q What did QR provide?

A It was to wallet

Q Did they have to ID?

A No

Q Is that how it worked?

A Yea, thats how it worked

had two keys and one let you in machine

Q What did machine charge?

A It charged no more than 14%, but it was based on market rates and changed over time, 8-14%

2017 or 2018 maybe

Q Neither had ID?

A No, it was not enabled

Q What was your role?

A I helped with machines if people had questions

Q Did you get compensation?

A I don’t remember, but most value was bringing people into the store

[I think he’s referring to when it was 101 goods here as I don’t think the Mighty Moose Mart business received anything from the machine, as that was entirely separate, something I made sure of before investing in the Mighty Moose Mart business]

I follow the principle in life I don’t need to know what you do with your money

Up to $5,000 limit

Q Did you talk to people putting money into machines?

A Yes

I did not what to know that people investing and certainly not if they doing something criminal

Q Could you do serial transactions?

A I suppose, but I never saw anyone do that

If something was troubling we would ask people to leave

A man who owned a small business for example said that they were ~”going to cut off power and I need to pay in bitcoin”

I told him it was a scam

In another incident a women came in with lots of cash to buy bitcoin

Women would get money from someone for auto parts

If we suspect scam we would stop it

Q Did you see mostly older people?

A No, all ages

High school kids all the way up to elderly

Occasionally we had family member buy bitcoin

love of life once and romance scam

Q Did you talk to Ian to do anything to stop it?

A No

Q Did you do anything?

A Yes, I made a sign to warn people of common scams

A photo with a sign saying Bitcoin Scam Warning is shown as evidence

Q But no change in functionality of machine?

A No

Q You said you had interest in bitcoin?

A Yes

Q Did you have an idea for bitcoin?

A Yes, I had idea to put bitcoin machines in airports

Q Did you decide your machines would have KYC/ be registered?

A Yes, a minimum of KYC

Q Did Ian see it?

A Yes

Q Did he have an interest?

A Yes, “no, not for me” he said

[this is hearsay, but I’m sure also true]

Q Did he ever talk to you about other machines?

A Yes, 3-4

Q Did you know he had other methods for trading Bitcoin?

A Selling bitcoin yes

[note how chris does not say trading bitcoin, he says yes to selling bitcoin]

Not know anything about it other than localbitcoin.com

Q Did he ask you to do any of this?

A I was frustrated with td bank at the time

I told him I would shut down my account

He asked if he could use it to I guess sell bitcoin

Q Did you sign agreement?

A Yes

Shows the agreement to assist shire bitcoin outreach operation 2017 on screen

Q Did ian pay you from time to time?

A Yes

ian admin

chris: assistant

Q Do you know who wrote the agreement?

A No

Agreement has to turn over account for exchange outreach

non-taxable

bitcoin undermines state going to war

20% pd to assistant

chris says made $100-1500 in early days / month

Q How were you paid?

A pd by check, cash app, or similar

Q Did you sign td bank [blank] checks and hand to freeman?

A Yes

Q Did you have to deal with account issues from time to time?

A Yes

Usually when my account was being scammed and people would claim deposit in wrong account and bank would give scammer money back

I would talk to teller sometimes

Q Did you ever talk to customer of freemans business?

A No

Q Did you open bitcoin account for exchange for freeman?

A No, not worth the time, too much paperwork

Q Did you open a 2nd bank account?

A Yes, Bank of america

Q Did you intend to use for 101 local goods?

A I intended to provide freeman access

[I believe they have put up a bank statement document on screen of which chris is referencing to give these answer ]

Q How much money?

A $787,300.63 in 1 month

Q Is counter credit cash?

A I guess

Q $185,000 huffman 4 transactions

Schmit $65,000

Said it was wire for orphanage

outgoing wires all say to ian freeman

and checks too

Q Not made to shire free church right?

A Yes

[Yea, except that doesn’t mean it wasn’t for the shire free church, you can write your legal name or the name of your business and BOTH are acceptable to the bank]

Q Did you want to stop?

A Yes, banks were getting irritable by cash deposits, and it took too much of my time

They show a document on screen as evidence that says it’s a termination agreement

2/12/2020

It includes a $6,000 severance

Resignation from crypto churhc

The defense now cross examines Chris Rietman

Q you were involved in it for quite a while?

A Yes

Q Why did you gravitate to it?

A It was money not controlled by banks and governments

Q Good arrangement for you?

A Yes, 101 local goods was not doing well and this supplemented the income for the business

Q Is Ian a good guy?

A Yea

Q Kept agreements?

A Yes

Q Did he ever indicate he operated a money laundering service or worked with scammers?

A No

Q What did he express?

A He expressed gratitude someone was using bitcoin for good, to build orphanages overseas

Q Did he encourage you to prey on old ladies?

A No

Q What did scam warning sign say?

A Bitcoin Scam Alert

it included information on common scams like romance scams and utility bill scams

It was in a public space where people would see it

Q Why was it called a vending machine?

A The term vending machine means one way, it’s not connected to the banks

A vending machine is something you put money into and get something of value out of

Q Who owned it?

A Ian or the the shire free church

Q Product sold was by church, someone else?

A Yes

It did not go out to third party, it was sending it’s own product to individuals, yes

[this is super important, because if it had sold someone elses bitcoin it would be an exchange and not a vending machine and an exchange would be regulated under money transmission laws]

Q The terms of service said “you must use a QR code from wallet you control”, Why?

A he does not want third party involved in transaction

Another term was “Don’t need to know you want them”

Q Did anyone explain why they wanted anything at 101 local goods?

A No, no where they got there money from

Q What were the demographics of people using the machine?

A They were all over the place

Q It wasn’t a hang out for some particular demographic?

A Right

Q Did freeman ever say to let people be scammed?

A Ian was like we shouldn’t care what people do with there own money

Q Was anyone concerned with fees?

A Yes

But the machines were charging about market rate

[I’d say they were below market rate during much of their operating life, though got more expensive as the government cause the cost of running things to go up, but still were well within market rate!!!]

[ An interesting thing occurred at this point that we noticed… there was a change in courtroom procedure because the public wasn’t standing for the judge, but we were standing for the jurors, and thus the judge is now walking in after the jurors whereas before he was walking in sitting down, and then having the jurors come in, the public was showing respect for the juror, but not the judge ]

chris rietman defense cross examination

kiosks

Q Lack of ID you agree right?

A Yes

Q Did anyone like that?

A Yes, it was nice for a $20 purchase

All people felt they should not have to ID just to buy something

fees were variable

I often asked % they were

I always expected the price to be higher

Checks

Q you kept account open?

A Yes

Q That account actually making 101 money, right?

A Yes

[ This is an important point the defense lawyer is making, while Ian was using those checks, this activity was bringing in money for 101 goods, so it was part of 101 goods business ]

Q How much did it make route 101 goods?

A I don’t recall, but we never retired

Maybe $1000-2000 / month

Q Same with other account?

A Yes

It was keeping our business alive

Q Ian was a pretty good landlord right?

A Yes

Ian was always willing to work with us during hard times

Q Good landlord then?

A Yes

Q good guy to be in business with?

A Yes

Q Good friend?

A Yes

Prosecutor asks some more questions of chris

Q You opened 101 local goods?

A Yes

Q You didn’t tell the bank the real reason for the account?

A They never asked

sometime would ask why open account and I’d explain we are a consignment shope

Q You could not stand by machine 24/7, right?

A Right

Q When open it could have taken ID?

A No

Because not enabled

Q Airport business would be vending business?

A yes

Q You said you would register with FinCEN?

If I got to a level I would be a money transmitter

two-way is why I’d need to register

The vending at 101 local goods store was not tied to exchanges, but in my idea it would connect to exchanges

This is why I’d have to register with FinCEN whereas the 101 local goods store vending machine operated by Ian did not have to register

Q What were fees?

A 5% up to 10% depending on a lot of factors

But always would have to be something

Q How much you made total?

A No idea

$6,000 was most we ever got

Defense asks more questions

Q Car scam would it be stopped if you showed license? Would it stop scam?

Prosecutor asks more questions

Q Id won’t stop illegal transaction?

A No

Q Drug dealer would think twice if ID?

A No, but I would have stopped them

Prosecution

Q Could ID stop some transactions though?

A Yes, some possibly

Next up for testifying is Colleene Fordham

61 years old

What does she do? Works at Mighty Moose Mart

Owner: Ian Freeman

Moved ~8 years ago from PA

Worked previously for delta insurance

Q Do you share same libertarian views as husband?

A Yes, but not as strongly

Q You were charged with money laundering and wire fraud and had an agreement to testify?

A yes

[ note: she didn’t take a plea deal, they dropped the charges, and the testify agreement was separate agreement not to bring other unrelated charges whether or not they were likely ]

Q How did 101 get started?

A Worked for thrift store in same location and got a brainy idea to start a craft store

Q Why was the store not successful?

A No, not really, not many people buy gifts often

Q Shire Free Church associated with Ian?

A Yes

Q His responsibility for machine?

A Ian came in and removed cash

Q Any responsibility?

A No

Q Anyone tell you why they used the machine?

A Yes

Q Who made the sign?

A Ian or Chris

Q Who used it?

A All types

Q Was ID Required?

A No

Q Did you find out about online selling?

A yes

Q Did you get asked to help?

A Yes, open bank accounts

Q You have agreement with freeman?

A Yes

Q How many accounts?

A 3

Q Did you sign blank checks to freeman?

A Yes

Q You have to deal with account issues?

A Yes

Q Happen often?

A No, but stressful because I didn’t deal with customers

They present a letter from an investigator for service credit union on screen

Q Why stressful ?

A Because I didn’t not how to handle it

“I sell rare coins like gold and silver”

Mr freeman wrote email

Q Happen often?

A No, 2 times

2018 letter goldbacks

Email to bank shown on screen proves ian did not hide bitcoin sales from banks as it explains what happens and who colleene and shire free church are.

Defense cross examines colleene fordham

Q You made a deal with government right?

A Yes, money laundering and wire fraud

Q Did you consider yourself as someone involved with money laundering or co-conspiring with one?

A No

Q Any agreement to launder money?

A No

Q Freeman on church own building?

A Yes

Q Good person to do business with?

A Yes

He is not capable of doing the sorts of things he is accused of

Q He never expressed interest in scams?

A No

Q Freeman didn’t oversea machine did right?

A Yea

Q What were the age groups that used the machine?

A 20s to 70s

Q No specific demographic?

A No

Q He would not have known if something was shady?

A No

Q Did law enforcement ever ask about the machines?

A No

Q Do cops come in?

A Yes

Q Just right there right?

A You couldn’t miss it

[Note: the fbi actually missed the machines because they were too stupid to realize that the bitcoin vending machine was in the bitcoin embassy and even raided the wrong location, they raided the mighty moose mart convience store, stole a safe, a point of sale machine, and 15 minutes later realized their mistake and returned the items ]

Q There has always been a machine in the building?

A Yes, since I’ve been there

Q you were getting something?

A Yes

Q Did he ask you to lie to banks?

A No, he discouraged it MAJORLY

Q He’s not hiding? He is writing letter right?

A Correct

Letter says “church mission is selling bitcoin online”

“We ID to stop fraud”

[Note: the letter related to online selling of bitcoin by the church, not the vending machines, as other methods were used to stop scams there, ie scam warning sign]

Q Ian is taking it upon himself to explain whats going on with the scam?

A Right

Q He is saying clearly that it is him involved in the trade right?

A Yes

Q He is not hiding the fact he is selling bitcoin to a bank investigator, right?

A Right

[this is important because the government is claiming he is misleading the banks when it fact he does tell the banks how the shire free church operates, who colleene fordham is and her relationship to the church’s operating, what bitcoin is, using the term bitcoin, etc]

Q He is giving a lot of info to the bank rep right?

A Yea

Q Still a convenience store?

A Yes

Q Is Ian still treating you fairly?

A Yes

[the prosecutors own evidence shows ian is innocent]

Prosecutor asks questions now

Q not gold and silver coins, right?

A No

[the letter says like rare coins like gold and silver, not that the thing being sold were traditional coins and bitcoin is often compared to gold and silver, it’s like it in its value, in that it is a result of being rare]

Q Not true right?

A No

[Colleene Fordham is not a technical person, she barely has a crypto wallet, and what she had hadn’t been utilized ~4 years, she doesn’t understand the question here very well]

Cross examination by the defense now:

Q Bitcoin has the word coin in it right?

A Yes

Q It’s rare, right?

A YES!

[She gets it now! Yes- bitcoin is rare coin, just not the type she was understanding or thinking]

Day 3 is over!

 

Crypto6 T-shirt Supporters Are Wearing

[ This story was updated on Dec 8 ~ 9:30 PM eastern to include more of the summary of the days testimony which I ran out of time to include prior, see further down for where the new edition starts ]

One thing to say is Ian’s lawyer is killing it. The prosecution’s doing such a terrible job that it appears they couldn’t convict a ham sandwich in a grand jury hearing where 99.99% of the time prosecutors win because there is no defense allowed.

Come out and support the Crypto6’s Ian Freeman in OUR fight against tyranny and the state. Plenty of people showed up on Tuesday throughout to support the cause. Questions are going around about the mask and ID policy. Unfortunately the court has instituted a mask required policy and a new ID policy in an attempt to deny supporters of the Crypto6 entrance. As a result of prior incidents at the court involving ID and other government monitoring of supporters the court has instituted these policies. It’s possible that someone will try to justify these policies as not being the result of our support. However the facts speak for themselves. The government instituted the ID policy in late November ~ about 30 days prior to the trial. Evidence of this has been posted above. Until jury selection and trial began there was no mask policy or no enforcement thereof. I’ve been to dozens of court hearings in the past year and none of them required a mask. Now you might be thinking- maybe it’s to protect people because there are so many people in the room. This is non-sense. The judge instructed the room that they could remove the masks on Wednesday following the exit of the jurors from the room. This policy or enforcement thereof has nothing to do with the guise of safety. It has to do with keeping supporters out. The justification by the court for the masks is due to CDC guidance when in fact the CDC has NOT recommended masks for quite some time maybe ~6 months or even much longer now.

I’d encourage people not to let this stop you from partaking in observation of the trial and the hearing. The best way to counter these policies and their main aim (to keep us out) is to resist, but ultimately comply. Compliance ensures we put up a fight while still achieving the greater aim. Ultimately this is the only thing we can really do in regard to any of these draconian efforts to undermine the guise of what they call the justice system. That is protest- fight- but do so peaceably as we always have. It’s peace that demonstrates who the real aggressors are.

My resistance led to a 45 minute delay on Tuesday and resulted in me missing part of the jury selection process. It was the best day to resist as not much happens during jury selection that is actually public despite it being “public”. No, it’s not ian that has been secretive, and having something to hide. It’s the court, it’s the government. ~3 hours of classical music playing in the background to inhibit the public from hearing the quiet whispers is right out of the soviet era. A tactic of suppressing dissent while giving the appearance of having an “open” and “free” or democratic system.

We can resist AND support Ian and freedom in more than one way simultaneously. For those who come to the main room there are free the crypto6 t-shirts that say Bitcoin is not a crime available. No charge. I will graciously accept contributions to offset the printing costs however, but more importantly is people find me and get a t-shirt. I have hundreds of crypto6 t-shirts left and I want them GONE by the time this trial is over.

What happened during Day 2 of the trial?

About 15 supporters of the Crypto6 came out to support the trial. Good job guys! Some interesting notes of the day. Where the defense had 1 layer the prosecution’s team had 6 lawyers on the prosecutions side that we know of. Other lawyers likely were helping with the case elsewhere or on other days. The disproportionate funds being spent by government to attack people are far greater than those any individual can generally afford to put into a defense as the government generally isn’t paying for a good defense.

Prosecutor

The prosecutor starts by calling Alex Commoli to the stand. Alex Commoli has an undergrad degree, has a law degree, is an attorney, and a forensics annalist.

She is involved in cyber money laundering, drugs, virtual currency, and works as a case agent alongside prosecutors. She said she worked for the “virtual currency evolving threats unit” for 5-6 years and partook in training activities. She also has worked (exclusively) online as an undercover to “infiltrate online communities”.

Q What was your role in this case?

A Looked at records

She would purchase bitcoin as an undercover agent from localbitcoins.com

Q Do you have a basic understanding of how crypto works?

A Yes

Fiat is currency backed by a government.

Q Do you have a bank account?

A Yes

Q What was the process for opening a bank account?

A Provide ID so they know who you are

Q When purchasing a car with a check whose involved in the transaction?

A Me, you, and two banks

Q What are the banks doing?

A debiting my account and crediting yours

Q In virtual space how would you do this? What does this case use?

A Bitcoin, instead of a check we do it in bitcoin

example 1 bitcoin for car

Q How do we do this transaction?

A Need something to store, send, receive

Q How do we get this?

A Via a wallet, a wallet stores Bitcoin

Q Where is the wallet gotten from?

A There are hardware wallets and web wallets

Q Both have wallets?

A There is a public and private key, an address is like a bank account

Q Private key?

A It’s equivalent to a pin or signature authority, it’s a super secure string #

Q Your wallet to my mine, how many entities are involved?

A Two. You and me.

Q For banks how many entities are involved?

A At least 4 for banks

Q How do we keep score in bitcoin?

A It’s done on the blockchain the same way banks do debits and credits

Q How do I see it?

A Download or via a website

Q How many digits is wallet?

A About ~26 to 36, I can’t remember exactly

It shows ABC2 sent money to ABC1.

Shows amount, time, and other info.

Q Wallet, time, and amount?

A Yes

Bitcoin network verifies transactions

There is no entity that is blockchain

Q Identity notification on blockchain?

A Yes

It’s pseudo anonymous

Q Could I figure out every transaction you made?

A Yes

anonymous means you can’t know

pseudo anonymous means you can know

Q Is the bank pseudo anonymous?

A No

Names are on your checks and banks know who you are

Q Can you investigate a check?

A Police can and a bank can

Q For Bitcoin?

A You can call police, but no recalling is possible

The transaction can’t be undone

It’ can’t be pulled back

Q “anonymous and unrecoverable?”

A Yes

[ The witness falsely indicates here and contradicts what she said earlier that bitcoin is psudo anonymous ]

Q Previously we presumed we already had bitcoin. If we don’t have it how do we get into it?

A Mining. The most common way is through exchanges. Places you can buy crypto..

Q Dollars to bitcoin conversation requires what?

A ID, passport, email, and other info

Q What is another way to do cash to bitcoin?

A LocalBitcoins.com

It’s like craigslist or ebay

It has different options for payment

ie it’s peer to peer or person to person

Q Another way?

Often they will go offline

Q Private sale?

A Yes

Q Other ways?

A Kiosks

You put in money and get bitcoin out

Q LocalBitcoins.com is an investigation you worked on?

A I can confirm Ian Freeman used LocalBitcoins?

[This is technically a false statement, as a forensics expert she only can confirm that someone passing through an internet connection registered in Ian’s name and might be Ian used LocalBitcoins, but it could also be another user, a name in a fraudulent account, or someone proxying through the connection, I have computer forensics training and a computer science degree, and much of what is said by computer forensics “experts” is just wrong or misleading, and this case is no different]

Q We will go through records from LocalBitcoins.com, you have been a buyer here?

A Yes

Q How?

A You put in how much of a % you want to sell and payment methods

Q Like ads for buyers?

A Yes

Q So you found an ad you liked now how do you start?

A Looked for terms like ID required

Q How do you start?

A You enter an amount and click trade. A chat box then opens with the seller.

Q How do you get money to sender?

A LocalBitcoins.com acts as an escrow service. So seller can’t make off with your money without releasing crypto. Can be done with gift cards, wires, etc. Bitcoin is released once the terms are fulfilled.

Q Is feedback important?

A Yes

Feedback is like that on Amazon and Uber and other platforms.

Q Why is feedback important?

A Buyers choose sellers based on high feedback level

[At this point they pull up a record from LocalBitcoin.com]

[This shows information in a database that LocalBitcoin.com maintains pertaining to transactions purported to be in the name of ian, and different churches, and unknown parties ]

Username is important to people as they tend not to use full or their real name.

Real name won’t show to buyer unless seller reveals it.

Q Did Ian?

A Yes

[ This is technically inaccurate as they have not and can’t confirm it is Ian behind the account, none-the-less the so called computer forensics expert testifies to it ]

Q Did he provide phone, email, address, etc?

A Yes

Q When was account created?

A ~2016

Q Last seen?

A June 3, 2020

Q 39 Ads?

A yes

Q Trades?

A 3946

Q What is this?

A drivers license to open account

[Note that a drivers license is not proof that someone opened an account, a drivers license could be obtained via a database leak from the dark web, and then utilized to open the account, while Ian doesn’t appear to be disputing this it’s not as clear cut as the forensics “expert” is making it sound]

[They now admit evidence which is a list of ians advertisements on LocalBitcoin.com]

Q What is this?

A Customer information for user bitcoinbombshell

Q Is account?

A Renee Spinella

Q Are these all to sell Bitcoin?

A Yes

Q What is a wire?

A A transaction between two bank accounts

[They now present a terms of trade document on the screen, the evidence is all being displayed on large TV screens in the courtroom]

Q When does this come up?

A Pops up if a user clicks on an ad

Q Is the time a transaction takes a concern?

A Yes

– For Bitcoin no refund

– Take a pic of entire receipt

Q Why is this important?

A Confirms funds transferred to seller

Ian’s disclaimer on screen:

~”what you do with bitcoin is your business. Don’t tell me what you do. I reserve the right to refuse sale. You certify you are buying and receiving the Bitcoin.”

Q You reviewed each trade?

A Yes

Q Was the disclaimer in every trade?

A Yes

Terms of trade

Q Due to fraud I may ask for additional info

A Yes

“depending on history I may require more info… must right for bitcoin purchase from ftl_ian”

Q “Due to fraud I have had to tighten up security?”

A Yes

Q Why?

A To protect seller

Q This one is for a wire transfer?

A Yes

“Must match government ID”

Photo of government ID required with written note “I certify I am buying Bitcoin from church of invisible hand” on the receipt is required. User name and reference # on receipt + selfie holding slip is required.

[The defense has no objection to chat log localbitcoin.com, logs are from end of 2019 until 2021, chat logs show ian refused to not follow law when buyer wanted to skirt currency transaction reporting requirements]

[The logs show that ian or purported ian is telling the buyer to say the reason for the transaction if asked by a financial institution is to purchase rare coins]

In the chat log ian says to buyer:

“I can not be seen as avoiding a cash transaction report”

“make deposit, upload photos, and then mark complete”

Account partner: 101 local goods

[What is interesting to note here is that these other entities or individuals are what are called payment processors in the industry and are a completely normal part of conducting these sorts of transactions, there are contracts between entities like convenience stores for example to receive money for goods on behalf of other parties]

~“If having agent deposit on your behalf I need ID from both”

[A this point you see a Nigerian passport posted to the chat log and a “victims ID” Mary Hurd is posted too, this evidence was posted to the docket and evidenced Mary Hurd’s involvement in a scheme to defraud the Shire Free Church, this however isn’t presented or hasn’t been, and it may be due to the fact the evidence is hearsay, but the docket evidence shows Mary Hurd told prosecutors or an FBI agent that she didn’t know the fraudster yet wrote on a receipt when buying Bitcoin that she was buying Bitcoin for the fraudster by name, at a minimum her credibility is destroyed and likely why the prosecution dropped her as a witness yet continues to utilize the chat log as evidence here against Ian, the chat log is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.218.1.pdf and

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.218.0.pdf

The prosecutor said here that Mary Hurd’s only contacts related to these transactions were with “Arnold” and she does not know Chiedu, or the fraudster, yet bought bitcoin for him according the message communicated to Ian via the receipt. She did in fact know the fraudster Chiedu if you look carefully at the evidence posted in the chat log. ]

“I certify that I am buying Bitcoin from FTL_Ian and the Shire Free Church on behalf of [Chiedu, the actual fraudsters full name]” … and todays date and signature.

[Photo of the above is written on receipt with selfie posted to chat log]

Q Does he ask for reason for buying crypto?

A No

[The scammer is getting angry in chat log for Ian and the Shire Free Churches excessive Know Your Customer compliance policies, Ian repeatedly insists in the log that the scammer follow the rules]

Q Why is he doing this?

A To ensure he gets paid

[This is the most absurd answer. It’s obvious to anyone who knows anything about financial regulations that the reason he is doing this is to comply with the law that mandates you have a policy on know your customer assuming at least you are a regulated entity of which the church is NOT under the law meaning that ANY KYC is far in excess of what is required, but it’s actually over the top and not even the banks do this level of KYC]

[A dispute is opened by the scammer after the scammer violates FTL_Ian’s terms / the church’s terms and FTL_Ian continues to insist on following the rules]

“You have not provided the required receipt selfie”

[Scammer then threatened to call police on FTL_Ian. Ian then asks scammer to restart trade and fix issues and then will send bitcoin as was agreed to]

Q What is third party trade?

A Agent marry hurd, ftl_ian, and Nigerian national

[basically the forensics expert is saying a third party trade is where there exists an additional party to the transaction, you have the person depositing money into a bank account, and the person receiving the bitcoin is a different individual]

Prosecution

Q The premises of case is “no questions asked”. There was no due diligence on Mary Hurd. This was a red flag. Our whole overarching basis of the case is Ian Freeman engaged in money laundering.

Types of Evidence

– Testimony

– Exhibits

– Stipulations

He submitted a document to the court that he did not remember having any contact with Mary Hurd. Document indicates Ian to say rare coin / investment..

Q Is there any evidence that this was a transaction for rare coins?

A No

[This is blatantly false given that Bitcoin’s value is derived from it’s rarity and the name Bitcoin literally has the word coin in the name, but the government considers the word “coin” to be a legal definition and only ever mean US currency. If you claim a euro coin is a coin you’re somehow committing a crime. Obviously there are non-government coins in existence. Often valuable, often novelty coins, etc In fact my company sells something we refer to as a novelty token, and not a coin ONLY because the government uses this to persecute people, see https://www.thinkpenguin.com/gnu-linux/gnu-slash-linux-token-tpe-linuxcensored, basically we went in and made it obvious we were being censored as we can not utilize the term coin without the risk of the government using this against us under this absurd non-logic]

[Evidence of chats is suppose to show Ian never asked why customers were purchasing crypto as if it isn’t relatively obvious… 99.9% of purchasers are buying crypto as an “investment” whether or not freedom loving folks like that and he even had Marry Hurd write rare coin OR investment]

Q Is there any evidence of buyer making a donation?

A No

[This is also false, Google defines donation as “something that is given to a charity, especially a sum of money”, and the Church is a charity and the proceeds are that “something”]

[From all this presented so far we can gather that the government thinks that retired folks buying bitcoin with retirement funds is suspicious, though it’s not at all clear why this is suspicious, it’s as if old people aren’t interested in growing their wealth, which is obviously not true]

[Prosecutor evidences Ian verified phone #s]

[The forensics analyst is asked about using IP addresses evidence and it appears the prosecutor is trying to show or verify that that the account is controlled by Ian even though this can’t be proven. What is shown is a PUBLIC IP and the expert claims it’s a device IP which just isn’t the case. There is no link connecting Ian to the account conclusively.]

Q Anonymity is not illegal right?

A No

Q Private sale of material good you don’t have to explain your doing right?

A Correct

Q Bank didn’t stop that $750k transaction we talked about earlier right?

A I can’t speak to that

Q Nobody stopped that event right?

A Yea

Q Bank questioned and freeman questioned it too right?

A Yea

Q Ian somehow worked hand in hand with fraudsters right? Any indication he worked with scammer?

A No

Q It stopped on local bitcoin if suspicious right?

A Right

Q It would be crazy if a scammer didn’t want to remain anonymous right?

A Right

Q Did Ian give out spoof’d phone #?

A No

Q Did Ian give out fake name or address?

A No

Q If anybody wanted to go after him they could, right?

A Yes

Q So he wasn’t being secretive?

A Right

[This is important because in the opening statement the government claimed he was being secretive and their own witness is saying he was not secretive]

Q Is that normal for scammers?

A No

Q People want Bitcoin everywhere, right?

A Yea

Q Did Ian know any scammers?

A Nothing I did could make that link

Q Why is age important?

A Indicator of fraud can be age particularly with Bitcoin

We consider this to be red flag

[Wow- the prosecutors own witness testifies to the fact the government is expecting people to discriminate, likely illegally against old people, this conflict makes you a criminal whether you do or don’t comply with the governments interpretation of the regulations]

Q How many transactions did Ian do?

A Over 3,000

[note: it was ~3900, just shy of 4000!!!!]

Q 20 transactions seems like a small # out of over 3,000 transactions, right?

A Yea

Q Did you read Ian’s reviews? The feedback

A Yes

Q Good reviews?

A Yes, customers were satisfied

Q No scams or people being ripped off?

A Correct

Q Did Ian ever meet the Nigerian national?

A No

Q Did anyone follow up on the international scammers?

A Not to my knowledge

Q Why would someone document ID?

A Not a robot, a real person, and be able to dispute a transaction

[Aww this is a crazy answer, it’s obviously done for legal reasons, ie KYC]

Q It would be to protect against scams, right?

A Yea

[Then she admits its to stop scammers !!!! which is what KYC is for]

Q If government wanted to investigate they could because Ian had documented buyers, right?

A Yea

Q Did FBI ever go to Ian and ask for help?

A I’m not aware of that

[great answer, obviously they didn’t]

Q He had protocols to ID people, right?

A Yes

Q Did he try to corneal anything from the FBI?

A No

Q Before Bitcoin there were scammers, right?

A Yea

Q They used gift cards before bitcoin right?

A Yea

Q Nothing secretive about Ian’s bank accounts right?

A Yea

[Governments witness admits Ian didn’t commit a crime as the governments argument is or was he committed fraud against the banks, this part of the charges were dropped before trail]

Q When did bitcoin start?

A 2009

Q Did physical bitcoin ever exist?

A No

[Sort of right sort of wrong, but psychical coins existed after Bitcoin was invented, but more of a novelty item than actual Bitcoin even though they “held” Bitcoin]

Q Original value of Bitcoin was zero, right?

A Yea

Q People liked it because you didn’t have to tell anyone what you were buying, right?

A Yea

Q If you pay in cash for a car nothing is illegal about that right?

A Right

Q Freeman was concerned about impostors right?

A Yes

Q Is this normal for scammers?

A He wanted to make sure they had him

Q Scammers don’t try to protect people, right?

A No, not usually

Prosecutor counters cross examination

Q He is a money launder, not a scammer, right? That’s the government allegation, right?

A Yea

Q Ever Ask about source of funds in transactions we looked at?

A No

[umm 20 carefully selected transactions, but what about the 3880 transactions you DIDN’T look at????]

Q Are scammers hard to find?

A Often can be

Q Are these church entities the scammers?

A No

Q What point of bank account?

A To receive money

Defense responds:

Q banks didn’t ask where money cam from either?

A I couldn’t speak to that

[Obviously not, or if they did it didn’t stop them from doing business either]

Q Is it your experience good old money launders give their real info?

A Sometimes

[holly crap- sure, sometimes, but certainly that isn’t normal]

Q Is that the normal though?

A Yea, not the normal

[Government witness even admits it]

Q He’s flesh and blood, not a shell company, right?

A Yea

 

[ note: the below was added at ~9:30 eastern December 8th as I ran out of time to include it prior to a following day trial ]

Prosecutor

Theodore Valahakis

Works for: US department of treasury (Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, FinCEN)

Works as: Compliance officer

Education: BA and JA School of law…. [missing full name of school]

Joined in 2009

Bank Secrecy Expert

Answers how to comply with banking laws

Could call or email

Then became compliance enforcement officer

Help with enforcement actions

Help banks to understand rules

Q What is bank secrecy act?

A Requires banks to file reports and report suspicious activity

It applies to financial institutions:

– MSBs or Money Service Businesses

– Casinos

– Hedge Funds

Money services business is based on the type of business that is conducted

– Cash checking

– Money transmission

– Prepaid access

– Postal service

Money transmitters are those who transmit funds by any means

Q How about exchanging Bitcoin?

A Yes because if you exchange for fiat you are a money transmitter

Q Exceptions exist?

A Yes

example: If you cash an employees paycheck once you are not a money transmitter

Depends on facts and circumstances

Q What makes you regulated?

A Regular transmission occurs

1-2 in a year wouldn’t constitute being a money transmitter

FinCEN offers a money service business home page

– It has faqs

– Rulings

– A helpline

Q Guidance on virtual currency?

A Yes, 2013 laid out compliance for users, businesses, etc

A user is someone who make it or spends it

Exchanges virtual currency for fiat is a money transmitter

Q Does size matter for being a money transmitter?

A No

Q Does it it matter if business describes itself as a money transmitter?

A No

Q Does guidance on kiosks exist?

A Yes

Those were in 2014 and just clarify virtual currency for real money makes you a money transmitter

Q Manor does not manor?

A No

Q Are there registration requirements?

A Yes, all must register within 180 days

The form has bank info, name

There is no fee to register

States have their own requirements

Q Registering with the state does not matter?

A Right

All are required to have an anti-money laundering program

1. Policy, procedures, internal controls

2. Compliance officer

3. Education and training

4. Independent review

1. Policy should include:

a. When suspicious what to do

b. Know your customer [aka example you could include an ID requirement, though KYC does not specify this]

c. When to close account

 

KYC means use of business and type of transactions policy to ask purpose of transmission

[note: the mere sale of crypto wouldn’t necessarily have a intended purpose, only transmission might say if you bought goods, odd for bitcoin sale]

Reporting requirements include those that do all cash transactions over $10k in one business day

Purpose is to help with investigations like who is on behalf of etc

[the guy got this wrong… the # was lowered to $8k recently, assuming this law actually applies which it does not in this unique case, sad that I know more than he does]

Suspicious Activity Report

– They believe possible suspicious transmission occurs

– Most common is called structuring, for example someone deposits $9,900 to avoid being reported

[note: later the prosecutor introduces evidence that actually shows Ian ensured that structuring did not occur]

– Breaking up to avoid currency transaction reports,

[ ie depositing $8,000, then $5,000, yea, people get charged with this all the time for merely going about their business and not actually breaking up anything just because it can appear that they did ]

– Lower income person who starts sending millions of dollars

– 40 boxes, and custom box exist

– Unregistered MSB is an example of the above

info collected for narrative for report

Q How do they collect it?

A Type of guidance on how to identify and report

– Faq

– How to complete SARs

– Webinars

Elder fraud guidance

– Elderly all of a sudden wants to transfer large sums

[ my dad just bought a house and he’s elderly.. I guess he’s a victim of fraud for taking out a lot of money ]

– Does not know what it is

– Direction or control of someone else

Q Purpose of suspicious activity report?

– Bank name

– Suspect info, ID, address, payment instrument

– Find patterns across financial institutions

[ take note that the church is not a financial institution as it DOES NOT transmit anything, not a money transmitter of any kind, important down the line, evidence on day 3 ]

Q Does FinCEN reach out to register?

A Yes

FinCEN sent email to entities indicating it was believed to be a money services business

Shire Cryptocoin FinCEN Letter is shown on screen

Sent via email

2013 guidance sent in 2018

“letter says it isn’t targeting any specific entity”

[ meaning it’s a general letter to lots of businesses]

Letter sent to Shire Cryptocoin

[ take note: no one knows who this is… but it isn’t Ian, it’s not any of the churches involved in the Crypto6s ]

Q What circumstances led to this letter being sent?

A Part of general program

Q Did anyone ever respond to letter?

A No

[ this is a holy crap because it means no kiosk ever responded to their letters as requested, remember this is the prosecution asking this, NOT the defense ]

Q Can you identify if a business registered?

A Yes

Certified letter show business never registered

[ Which one? Shire Cryptocoin? No such entity exists connected to the crypto6 ]

Q Never filed suspicious activity report?

A That would not be possible

[ I’d presume that to mean you can’t file if you aren’t registered ]

Defense cross examination

Q Via electronic delivery?

A Yes

Q Has no human name?

A Correct

Q Not directed to Ian Freeman?

A Correct

Q Who runs Shire Cryptocoin?

A I don’t know

Q Was this even read by Ian Freeman?

A I don’t know

Q All you can testify to is this is a common letter sent to people?

A Right

Q You don’t know if Ian Freeman ever received this letter?

A I do not know

Q On any of the addresses in email or FinCEN letter do you see Ian Freeman, Shire Free Church, or Shire Bitcoin?

A No

Q Shire Cryptocoin?

A No

Q You have no idea if Shire Cryptocoin has anything to do with Ian Freeman?

A I don’t

Q The purpose of this letter is to tell public what is legal not, right?

A Right

Q The law does not have Bitcoin included until 2021, right?

A Correct

It redefined Money Service Business to include real currency or anything that substitutes for it

[ this is important because they have charged Ian with a crime that didn’t exist until after he was arrested, in the United States this is unconstitutional, this is the definition of an ex post facto law, or a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment of the law. Note: that at least it would if applied, but it doesn’t because it only applies to those doing what Ian did AFTER he was no longer able to do it any more due to his bail restrictions, and he didn’t ]

Q Never asked to search suspicious activity for Mary Hurd?

[Mary Hurd was a supposed victim of a scammer who we found out the prosecutors evidence actually revealed that she knowingly took part in the scamming and defrauding the shire free church and knew the scammer by his real name and then lied about it based on a receipt where she wrote she was buying bitcoin for said scammer using his legal name, and then lying to the FBI and saying she hadn’t heard the name of the scammer before, they dropped her as a witness as a result of this, but it appears the prosecutions claims can’t be used due to the FBI interview not being done under oath, so sadly the jury never gets to hear that these “victims” in at least some instances were in fact defrauding the shire free church

Evidence of the fraud against the shire free church is available from the prosecutors own submitted evidence which you can find here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.218.1.pdf

and here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.218.0.pdf

]

A No

I did not search for any of the scammers

Q Don’t know if banks complied, right

A Right

[so they didn’t investigate the actual scammers and don’t know if even the banks were doing any KYC, yet Ian Freeman and the Shire Free Church’s policy was to always do KYC on new customers to the determent of the churches financial benefit]

Note: The day is over and the witness testimony continues on day 3

 

Protest Outside US District Court Ahead Of Trial

The first day of the Crypto6 trial (Dec 6th, 2022) went well for the Crypto6’s defense. More on that in a bit. There appeared to be about ~25 supporters in attendance although not everyone was in any one place all at once. Some were protesting outside, some were denied entry to the courthouse due to an attempt at suppressing support for the crypto6 through new ID and mask rules. 4+ people were denied access for having religious or health objections to the new mask mandate. 3+ people were explicitly denied entry for a newly created and enforced ID rule written in response to people Crypto6 supporters objecting to a not legally authorized demand for ID that existed prior to November. The paperwork was finally obtained evidencing this and is available from the Telegram and Matrix read-only update groups which can be joined via links at TheCrypto6.com

Many news organizations came out to report on the only jury trail to be held in the past 2+ years at US District Count in the District Of New Hampshire. The short list of reporting organizations that were in attendance included at least NBC, the Union Leader, the Sentinel, and an independent documentary crew.

One of the most interesting things I learned about the jury selection process at the federal level is that while it’s “open” to the public to attend the majority of the proceedings are secret. The judge started off with providing information on the process and there being juror questions. Potential jurors were then questioned, of which we learned nothing more than there name and what each potential juror looked like in ~2-3 hours of interviews. In the background all you could hear was some classical music playing over the loudspeaker.

The judge qualified 36 jurors and of those 15 were selected for jury duty with 4 alternatives selected.

The process gives the defense and prosecution an opportunity to ask the group of jurors questions. Some of these were quite interesting.

Except for at the end of the trail the prosecution generally goes first, as they have the burden of proof.

The prosecution utilized this time to ask these questions of the jurors or potential jurors:

How many don’t own a PC? Two responded that they didn’t.

How many don’t own a smart phone? One person responded that they didn’t (he did have a landline however).

How many don’t have an email address? One responded that they have no email address.

They also asked about social media to which nearly everyone had some form of social media.

A question on how many in the crowd were early adopters got a response that only 5 in the crowd would consider themselves early adopters. An early adopter is someone who seeks out the latest technology rather than waiting until it’s established and more widespread to pick it up.

Interestingly while most didn’t consider themselves early adopters about half considered themselves tech savvy and two indicated that they were uncomfortable with tech altogether.

Nearly everyone indicated that they had at least heard of crypto before, but just one indicated that they owned crypto. That juror was promptly dismissed.

Most of the crowd believed that the average age of a crypto user was under 30.

Only half of the crowd had heard of the Nigerian prince email scam and the same was true of the grandson in jail scam.

The general consensus of the jurors was that older people were more vulnerable to scams.

The defense utilized this time to ask the following questions:

What is the reason people have not bought crypto? Some of the reasons given by juror included:

– I work too hard to give my money away

– I don’t understand it

– It’s a pyramid scheme

– I prefer physical assets that have tangible value

– Scared of hackers

– Volatility

Many thought that people not understanding it made it good tool for scammers to take advantage of.

Many believed crypto to be what scammers use.

Of the juror or potential jurors 10 thought that crypto led to more scams.

One juror said in the early days of crypto it was not backed by government.

At least one juror felt he leaned toward crypto being “shady”.

I made as many statistical observations as I could. While not ideal this boiled down to the federal court utilizing a very secretive process by which to select jurors. While the jury selection process is open to the public the actual interview questions and responses are not. This leaves the public with nothing other than what might be available from statistical observations based on outwardly appearances. Thus you may get a feel for the potential juror makeup without any good idea if the process was actually fair or just.

– 22 out of 36 potential jurors had gray hair, no hair, or hair loss

– 10 or more of the 36 potential jurors had brought their own masks to court rather than utilize ones provided by the court at no charge

– 16 of the 36 potential jurors were women

– 100% of the potential jurors were white

– 12 of 36 juror wore glasses

Of the 36 potential jurors they concluded by selecting 15 with 4 being alternatives that can be utilized should people get sick or otherwise miss a day of jury duty.

At this point the judge adjourns the jury for lunch, but not before saying that the jurors will not be exiting from the front door of the building due to “a lot of activity”. This was code for Mr Bitcoin. Mr Bitcoin attended a protest outside the courthouse alongside many reporters and other peace loving activists who support Ian Freeman & the Crypto6.

Once the jurors are released for lunch a bit more back and forth occurs in the courtroom between the judge, defense lawyer, and prosecutor’s team of lawyers.

One issue that was brought up is that the prosecution wants to utilize a prior co-defendant Renee Spinella as a witness in the case. As she has taken a plea deal she could in theory be forced to testify. However there remains an issue because while she can’t be charged again at the federal level forcing her to testify could be self incriminating at the state level should one of any number of intertwining states wish to prosecute her. This is not considered an issue of double jeopardy, but what it does mean is she is likely able to take the 5th despite having taken a plea deal. The defense also revealed that she is considering withdrawing her plea. However, this is unlikely to actually be possible as the circumstances where this can be done are severely limited. If she was poorly advised there however may be grounds for withdrawal, but such withdrawal are rarely granted as the burden on the defendant of proving incompetence is high.

One of the most interesting things in the trial was that jurors were explicitly banned from tooting. Tooting is like Tweeting, but via a more decentralized or federated technology. While there is a standard protocol this generally means Mastodon. This may very well be the first time a federal court has brought up a decentralized or federated social networking platform.

Another interesting note is that the judge said that witnesses will not be wearing masks.

Prosecution

Ian ran a money transmitting business.

That business was a money laundering business.

The one goal to not know where the money came from.

He was involved in romance scams.

He would receive scam money and give Bitcoin in return.

He was intentionally disengaged to serve scammers.

It’s your business. Don’t tell me what you use the Bitcoin for.

No expert is needed to understand Bitcoin.

Selling Bitcoin is not illegal, but Ian’s selling of Bitcoin was illegal.

Bitcoin is pseudo anonymous.

There is no name or account info.

Nobody knows its yours unless you tell them.

It can’t be recalled.

These unique properties are desired by scammers.

Victims don’t know what Bitcoin is.

Ian’s business was involved in:

– Cash deposits

– Wire transfers

 

– Stacks of cash sent via the mail

Ian charged 10% and sometimes 20% fees!

Ian helped scammers remain anonymous.

There are laws to stop the very types of crimes Ian engaged in.

Businesses have to comply with rules to protect people. This primarily revolves around the bank secrecy act.

This includes:

– Registering with FinCIN

– Having an anti money laundering policy

– Filing suspicious activity reports with the government

He also had an obligation to stop suspicious activity.

– He did not register

– He did not do other things like file currency transaction reports

– Or file suspicious activity reports

He boasted he respected the scammers privacy.

Ian sold crypto via:

– Kiosks

– LocalBitcoins.com

– Telegram

His central basis for doing business was: what you do with your bitcoin is your business. Don’t tell me what you do with it.

Kiosk not registered

Completely anonymous

He advertised:

“You can get crypto online in various ways. The cheaper ones don’t respect your privacy.”

He’d say to employees:

– Big spenders

– Major wales

He had signs that said “Do not tell staff what you do with your coin. It’s your business to do what you want with it.”

This catered to scammers.

Ian proceeded to expand the business from kiosks to online crypto sales and hired employees.

This enabled him to reach people nationwide.

This was more complicated and he had to use banks to do it.

Banks follow rules.

They would frequently close Ian’s accounts.

At this point she admits Ian did KYC and said that to banks when he did disputes.

He directed people to tell banks deposits were:

– Church donations

– Purchases of virtual goods

– Rare coins

Then afterward he told people to write a different note on receipts about purchasing Bitcoin.

He would sometimes ask for a phone # to verify people knew what they were doing.

He would claim to be a victim to the banks when a recall occurred.

Ian said to contact him via Telegram and in PC he kept selfies of pics on his PC.

Victims never communicated with Ian.

He never asked too many questions.

We’re going to talk about one victim. A 76 year old victim. She sent 3 transactions totally $75,000 over 3 days. Ian charged a 10% fee.

Ian hired people to open banks accounts.

Ian opened bank accounts or had people open bank accounts in the name of churches. Church Of The Invisible Hand. The Shire Free Church. Crypto Church Of NH. Reformed Satanic Temple. Shire Peace Church.

Never told banks he opened accounts for Bitcoin.

He would tell banks he opened accounts for church outreach.

He never paid taxes.

– Conspiracy

– Tax evasion

– Money laundering of wire frauds

He shared 55 clients with Aria.

He made a sale of Bitcoin to an undercover FBI agent posing as a drug dealer.

In response to questions from the undercover FBI agent posing as a drug dealer asking about KYC Ian responded he disables all that.

The undercover agent went and bought crypto from one of Ian’s vending machines two weeks later and paid a 14% fee.

Ian “looked the other way”.

At this point the defense lawyer gets up and has the opportunity to make his own opening statement and responds to many of the claims of the prosecutor:

Can’t omit things.

(Ie meaning the government is lying)

Sisti says: “government made up stories”, “freemans not a scammer”

If freeman worked with scammers “place scammer on stand”

(note: there is no scammer on the prosecution’s witness list to base the argument of him working with scammers off)

[They] “investigated Ian for years”

[They] “made him out to be bad man”

Ian is most likely the least violent man in this courtroom.

Ian got money back from a scammer for a mother.

He helped a Texas investigator.

Church is real.

Church does real things.

Aided homeless in Keene.

Fed the homeless.

Helped with the courts.

Helped with community service.

“Setup orphanages in Uganda”

Lots of misconceptions going around.

Time to clear the air.

Freeman setup a mosque for the Keene’s Muslim community.

He helps local businesses accept Bitcoin.

He shows them how to do it for free!

Many businesses use his help.

Freeman is not secretive.

Photos have his name on them.

Record of transactions.

Warns people of scams.

Refuses to partake in scams.

He rejects deals.

He turns people away.

He works with law enforcement, on more than one occasion.

Money transmission came info effect post 2002.

Bitcoin did not exist in 2002.

Statute does not even mention Bitcoin.

Corrected only after arrest, and the law then only went into effect in Jan 2021.

Freeman is not in a business.

He’s not even transmitting anything.

Freeman relied on the law to protect himself.

Freeman sought a licensed attorney for legal opinion and relied upon that legal opinion:

The legal opinion said:

1. He was not operating a business

2. Church is not involved in exchange

3. Bitcoin is owned by church, not involved in moving other peoples money

No criminal intent whatsoever.

The banking commissioner of New Hampshire even testified that they are not money transmitters, but simply vending crypto.

Nefarious actors do not get:

– Drivers license photos

– Photos, selfies

All this was preserved for years.

What bank allowed $750,000 to be transferred by a 76 year old?

Freeman is not working hand in hand with scammers.

He warned people of scammers and they still would do transactions.

The undercover agent posing as a drug dealer is a sorry excuse to hang charges on Ian.

Ian refused to do business with the undercover agent.

Freeman told him no.

Why did the undercover agent need to go to the vending machine if Ian agreed to sell him crypto?

This was a “forced transaction”.

Told after the fact.

“I can not tell you you can use that”

What was he suppose to do? Post an armed guard in front of the vending machine?

Vending machines were operated for years at one location without problems. The owner at Murphy’s Taproom said there were zero complaints.

Murphy’s Taproom is open to the public, police, liquor commission, etc.

Remember what I said earlier. We are a “rule of law nation”.

It’s not a “good enough system” that we have.

You all agreed to follow the rules.

We need you now to watch and keep an open mind.

Burden of proof is on them, and it is a heavy one, “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

Sisti asks jury to vote “not guilty”- they failed

That concludes day 1 of the Crypto6 trial.

For more details, pictures, videos, etc on the days events visit TheCrypto6.com and join the Matrix or Telegram read-only Crypto6 updates group. We have links to articles written by others, pictures, videos, and more.

Need a comment for a story your writing on the Crypto6?  Want to get in touch? Need copyright sign off for your paper? Contact chris at thinkpenguin com for footage, pictures, potential interviews with those involved or surrounding the Crypto6 and more.

FBI Goon Smashes Cameras During Crypto Six Raid

Christmas came early! Just days before the start of the Crypto Six trial, federal prosecutors have revealed they will be dropping the supermajority of counts in their ridiculous case against me. Gone are all twelve of the “wire fraud” charges, three “money laundering” charges, “conspiracy to commit bank fraud & wire fraud”, and most importantly the charge with the ten-year mandatory minimum sentence, the “kingpin” charge of “continuing financial crimes enterprise”. All gone!

If you’ve been paying attention to the case for the last twenty months, you may recall the big deal the prosecutors made to try to keep me in jail until trial, claiming I am a “sophisticated cyber criminal” and a “danger to the community”. Prior to the charges being dropped, my bail conditions had loosed to where I am no longer wearing a tracking anklet. Now that those charges are gone, when we recently asked to remove the government spyware from my computer and phone, the prosecutors had no objection. Apparently, I’m no longer the scary things they told the judge and press that I was.

The remaining charges that are slated for trial are:

1. Conspiracy to Operate Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
2. Operation of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business
3. Money Laundering
4. Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
5. Attempt to Evade or Defeat Tax (four counts for 2016-2019)

While this is assuredly good news, as it reduces the maximum time I could spend in prison from 420+ years to 70 years, it’s really sad news for my three friends who took plea deals on the “wire fraud” charges. Had they known the charge they pled to would eventually be dropped, they surely wouldn’t have taken the raw “deal”. Now they are saddled with felony convictions for the rest of their lives for something that sounds really bad. The reality is, the accusations were simply that they’d lied to a bank, and that it was not even to try to scam the bank out of money, but only to do things like keep an account open. However no one who checks their record is going to ask them for details. They’ll just see “wire fraud” and think they are dealing with a fraudster, when in fact no one was defrauded. None of the banks lost anything and no restitution was ordered during sentencing for any of the three. None of them committed fraud, but they took the plea likely out of fear – the reason most people take a plea – because the feds know how to scare people.

Don’t Take the Plea Deal Flyer

They stack a ton of charges against you, then threaten to stack even more if you don’t tap out. A few years of probation and a felony starts looking really good compared to thirty years in prison, so it’s understandable why people will take a plea, even though they didn’t actually commit the crime of which they are accused. The prosecutors love it as they rack up conviction after conviction, ruining innocent peoples’ lives and bolstering the prosecutors’ careers. Plus, they never have to bother preparing for and going to trial. It’s super easy for them and it almost always works.

For a long time, I have been an advocate of “Don’t Take the Plea Deal“. ESPECIALLY if you didn’t actually do anything wrong. It is certainly risky and scary to go up against the federal behemoth. They have unlimited resources to throw at destroying you. However, if you take the first plea, you will never even get to see what kind of case they have against you. It might be a really crappy case and they may have made critical errors. There’s also a good chance of a better plea offer coming later on, but if you take the first plea, you’ll never find out. Of course, you have to do what you feel is right for you, and I never blame anyone for taking a plea if they feel that is best.

However, long term, people taking plea deals just empowers the state. If more people stood up and demanded their right to a trial, even on things as simple as a speeding or parking ticket, the “justice” system would not be able to handle the case load and they would likely just drop charges all together.

While I am happy to see the bulk of the charges in my case go away, I’m sad for my friends who were intimidated into wrongful convictions for vicitmless “crimes” on charges that would likely have been dropped anyway. The Crypto Six trial begins with jury selection on Tuesday, Dec 6th at Federal Court Church in Concord, NH.  For more background on the case, visit TheCryptoSix.com.

Ian Freeman Gets His Freedom Back: Running GNU/Linux On His Laptop Again

Ian Freeman of the Crypto6 is once again free to utilize his choice of operating systems: GNU/Linux. Back in ~ May of 2021 the feds took away Ian’s freedom of choice in what software he could utilize despite never having been convicted of any crimes. A tactic they regularly utilize against their victims. The purported reason for the arrest this time around was over the bastardly crime of selling crypto. However, after a decade of being targeted by the feds and the feds targeting other free staters and leading liberty activists in New Hampshire it’s a bit hard to believe that it was anything other than a politically motivated attack on freedom in the free state. This is at least the 2nd raid of Free Talk Live’s studio in the past 5 years, and the third incident involving federal agents and Ian / 73-75 Leverett St since ~2012.

However this isn’t what this story is about. It’s about the federal government’s attack on all things freedom and that includes the use of free software. What is disturbing about this is that the state is utilizing bail restrictions to prevent people from utilizing free software and has been doing it since at least the 1990s. Unlike other cases I have not heard of anyone else being successful in getting this type of restriction lifted and that’s quite disturbing. It took Ian more than a year and a pricey lawyer to get a ruling to lift this unreasonable and burdensome restriction on his right to utilize the software of his choice.

The good news of course is that with the help of his lawyer he was able to get the judge to lift this bail restriction. The bad news is that it comes just a week before his trial is set to begin. Yes- that’s right. It took ~19 months not including the two months that Ian spent in a cage to get a ruling to restore his right to utilize free software. And that’s ~2 months under which he was illegally held based on a magistrates misunderstanding of the law.

You might think this story ends with an operating system, but it’s not so. Not only did this restriction exist, but he’s also been prohibited from utilizing other free software. There is also an explicit prohibition on his use of Telegram. Now there is an argument for the restriction on his use of Telegram. At least in theory the argument would go that Telegram was a tool utilized in the course of conducting some sort of criminal enterprise. The problem with this logic is of course that a phone was also utilized in the course of conducting whatever sort of criminal enterprise that the prosecution has imagined up. Yet- there is no restriction for the use of a telephone.

There are many other unreasonable restrictions and violations of justice that defendants not convicted of any crimes face when being pursued by authorities who more often than not have no real basis for the restrictions on an accused freedoms. Ian they claimed was a flight risk- yet had no basis other than unsubstantiated claims of wealth, of which the judge eventually ruled was not a basis for holding someone. In fact even mob bosses can’t be held without bail! Yet- nothing stopped the prosecutor from slandering Ian’s good name and calling him a “kingpin”. No penalty will emerge from such actions because prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement are generally immune.

What can we do to change this? Well, not much. Without moving for independence New Hampshire residents will always be under the thumb of federal agents looking to attack freedom in the state. Fortunately there has been a growing independence movement in the state. If you’ve not heard of it check out https://www.nhexit.us for more information on the independence movement.

Not yet in New Hampshire? Well, if you believe in joining with other like minded persons to achieve liberty in our lifetime you should join the migration of liberty-minded folk moving to New Hampshire. After a decade of work free staters have achieved almost ~100 liberty friendly reps. While it may be another 8-10 years at our current rate of increasing representation to achieve more significant victories your move could help increase the pace. Not to mention we do have some small victories !

In 2017 for instance free staters worked with state representatives to pass a bill protecting New Hampshire businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies from state regulators. The bill passed and the governor even signed it into into law. There have been many other small victories like this one, but as has been demonstrated by the arrest of the Crypto6~ more needs to be done to achieve real freedom in our lifetime. If you’re a liberty-minded person join us in New Hampshire and we can achieve real freedom together.

Thanks to the hard work of liberty superactivist Justin O’Donnell, “101 Reasons to Liberty Lives in NH” has been completely re-done and updated in written form. It’s now called “Live Free and Thrive: 101 Reasons Liberty Lives in New Hampshire, and So Should You!” You can download it here as a PDF, for free. It’s also available for Kindle and in paperback form.

The original list, created two decades ago, has long needed an update as there have been so many amazing successes since then thanks to the thousands of people who have moved here for the Free State Project and NH Freedom Migration.

The new list will also be made into a documentary film and if you’d like to contribute to its production, please click here.

NHexit.US

The NHexit.US blog has a detailed story looking at what happened to the 13 state representatives who voted for the NH Independence bill this year, CACR 32. How many of them were re-elected? Turns out, of those who ran again and made it to the general election, 100% of them were re-elected!

Despite the democrats trying to make secession an issue, and despite the fears of the state reps who were too cowardly to vote for the bill, we now know that being in favor of NH independence, or at least being in favor of letting the people vote on the question – which is all the bill would have done – is not a guaranteed end to a state rep’s career.

For a full breakdown of how the NH Independence reps fared in this year’s election, see the article here at NHexit.US.

11/15/22 Crypto6 Evidentiary Hearing

After almost 7 years of waiting we’ve finally got a trial date! So mark your calendar and put your employer on notice that you’ll need a few weeks off as there is finally a solid date for the trial: December 6th, 2022. Address: U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301. Time yet to be known. Bring a valid state issued ID (real ID and passport not required) to ensure entrance to court house, no cameras/phones.

Early 2013 interaction between Phil Christiana and free staters

For those who haven’t been paying attention and wondering what the Crypto6 case is all about here is a bit of the backstory. In March of 2021 56 FBI agents, half a dozen three letter agencies, and dozens of other law enforcement officials raided the Bitcoin Embassy,  the Shire Free Church, Free Talk Live’s studio, a half dozen homes of so-called co-conspirators among other locations over the bastardly crime of selling crypto.

Somewhat closer to reality the story actually dates back decades and surrounds a single FBI agent with a political grudge against libertarians, free staters, and the Free State Project’s libertarian migration to New Hampshire. To shorten the backstory a bit further after a decade of attempting to take Ian Freeman out and three FBI investigations later FBI agent Phil Christiana finally thinks he has a case he can make stick against his primary political opponent Ian Freeman. You see Ian Freeman is a significant figure in libertarian circles and was responsible for many early movers partaking in the Free State Project’s migration. Some would even credit him with the success of the Free State Project itself. Ian’s activism in New Hampshire dates back about ~16 years now and has been a thorn in the side of Phil Christiana and the federal government for nearly as long. With a majorly syndicated libertarian run radio show Ian has enabled public criticism of government, government agencies, and officials with a show called Free Talk Live broadcasting on about ~200 radio stations nationwide. During this time Ian & co-hosts have promoted the Free State Project and cryptocurrency as a path to peace and freedom. Something dirty agents just don’t like.

The Hearing

The most recent hearing was significant in deciding many issues. The hearing started with a ‘daubert motion’ which is a motion discussed outside the presence of a jury to exclude the testimony of expert witnesses that do not possess the requisite level of expertise or otherwise used questionable methods to obtain data. In this case one of the defendant’s objectives was to exclude an expert that headed the blockchain forensics unit of the FBI and claimed to be an expert on blockchain analysis.

The prosecution granted Ian Freeman’s lawyer Mark Sisti a pre-hearing interview with the prosecution’s blockchain expert and key witness in the case Erin Montgomery. In that interview it came to light that Erin Montgomery has never been qualified as an expert witness before any court. Mark Sisti proceeded to argue that blockchain analysis was not a scientifically validated process sufficient to pass muster at trial. While it has been utilized in other cases to obtain search warrants and the like the standards for use at trial are far greater. In order to utilize blockchain analysis at trial the tools and processes would need to be open to peer review and the results be duplicable by outside experts.

One question that the defenses lawyer raised was whether or not the prosecutors filings constituted a community of experts. For which the prosecutor responded that she was an expert on co-spend. Co-spend is the tracing of the flow of bitcoins via clustering by co-spending which looks at addresses that create a transaction controlled by a given wallet. Effectively the testimony would attempt to prove the different Bitcoin addresses were controlled by the same person or entity.

The defense further clarified that the problem with letting the witness on the stand to testify was that it would give an aura or the appearance that the witness was an expert. To which the judge said he was also not even sure the witness was an expert witness either. As such he was inclined to allow the witness to offer an opinion, but only for story telling sake.

The prosecution proceeded to clarify that it was more about co-spend, not her being an expert.

Mark, the defense lawyer, then got concerned about qualifying her as a witness if not an expert implying that there were different standards of evidence for witnesses than expert witnesses.

Erin Montgomery was then asked to take the stand and testify about her qualifications. She stated that she worked for the FBI in a supervisory role within the virtual asset unit providing expert support. Her expertise covered crypto and decentralized virtual assets. Her qualifications included a liberal arts and history degree and 15 years of service with the FBI. She worked for the FBI’s cyber division unit which was a unit that focused on financially motivated cyber crime.

What makes her qualified to speak as an expert witness included:

– Early on she educated herself using online forums

– As books became available she read up further on Bitcoin

In 2011 Erin Montgomery was one of two people who took “ownership” in the FBI’s first big push into cryptocurrency. From the beginning she was part of a criminal investigation unit that created the virtual asset unit.

She then proceeded to specialize in doing blockchain tracing using open source tools and later commercial tools. She obtained two certificates from a company called Chainalysis which produces a commercial blockchain tracing tool.

She eventually became the supervisor of strategic and tactical groups developing the FBI’s curriculum for blockchain analysis. Despite claiming to have trained hundreds even thousands of people at the FBI she revealed that there were actually only four employees in her unit.

The defendant’s lawyer further questioned the agents credibility pointing out that she had no college education in blockchain analysis from A&M or taken any courses on blockchain analysis. In fact her education pre-dates Bitcoin’s existence. He points out that she never testified as an expert in any courtroom. The Chainalysis tool relied upon was developed by a private company and unavailable for peer review. He asks what the training requirements were for her field. To which she responded that there were no training requirements. Rather the program was developed in house and not peer reviewed by any outside agency at all. There was no scientific basis either. However her work was at points double checked by team-mates.

When her work was questioned, she said that while the evidence was originally crafted by the way of a commercial tool she re-created her work utilizing open source software blockchain.info. Humorously this is not an open source program, but rather a website. Within the context of the questioning the lawyer was not asking about “open source tools”, but the ability of outsider expertise to analyze the source code. This so-called expert didn’t even understand the question let alone that the software she was referring was not open source, but rather merely a website open to the public.

When questioned about her colleague double checking her work she responded that errors had been found, but that she couldn’t remember if any errors were found in this particular case. As the testimony continued the blockchain expert gleaned at the prosecutor gesturing for confirmation of her testimony. A regular back and forth of this continued throughout the testimony. Upon follow up questioning by the prosecutor the witness reveals that it’s very easy to make mistakes. In giving an example of a mistake shes made before she humorously even made an unintentional error confusing Bitcoin addresses and amounts thereof.

The defense asks what makes you special, to which the expert witness responds that she doesn’t know that anything makes her special. This is an embarrassing blunder given she indicates that even the defense lawyer could reproduce her work using the same websites she utilized. Obviously- if anyone can do it then one is not an expert.

She testifies that co-spend can link different Bitcoin addresses to a single individual yet fails to grasp that multiple people can control a single private key. While it may generally be correct that one controls a wallet by way of a private key there is nothing that says more than one individual or entity can’t control a private key or wallet.

During the hearing the defense lawyer questions whether or not all work has been provided to the defense team. To which the judge is very concerned. He states he does not want a repeat of the ‘Enron situation’ which was a case where not all the evidence that the defense was entitled to was provided by the prosecution which is required by law for a fair trial to occur. Particularly important is evidence favorable to the defense. He concludes that not all evidence favorable to the defense appears to have been turned over based on the expert witnesses testimony.

The defense reveals that there will be a number of witnesses thus far unknown introduced. One piece of evidence introduced to the docket thus far was a legal opinion from a lawyer advising the Shire Free Church on how to operate and vend cryptocurrency without falling afoul of the registration requirements at the federal level and state level. The prosecutor previously attempted to have this letter excluded from trial by falsely claiming the letter was referencing state law only. While that effort may have failed it is now revealed that not only will the letter be introduced at trial, but so will the attorney that drafted it. Thus removing any question of its authenticity.

The defense will also subpoena New Hampshire’s banking commissioner of whom testified at a state house hearing. The hearing was focused on removing the authority of the banking department to regulate cryptocurrency businesses in New Hampshire. It had previously been granted this authority by accident and had never actually regulated cryptocurrency businesses in the state. The witness will testify to the fact New Hampshire did not regulate the very type of vending the Shire Free Church did. In fact, her example during the state house hearing was specific to the Shire Free Church’s operations and the bill proposed was in direct response to legislators and supporters wanting to protect the Shire Free Church and similarly operated vending operations in New Hampshire.

During the hearing it was also revealed that a key piece of evidence intended to prove a ‘knowingly’ aspect of one of the charges wasn’t directed at the Shire Free Church or Ian Freeman. Nor was this letter sent by certified mail or even the postal service. The letter was sent to numerous operators via email and resembled something akin to spam or a fraud.

One of the defenses arguments appears to be that the vending machines were open and notoriously operated for many years.

Judge’s Conclusion:

There will be no jury nullification argument allowed at trial. This however was never an aspect of the defenses argument, but rather created by the imagination of a prosecutor who is aware of Ian Freeman’s jury nullification outreach. That outreach pertains largely to state courthouses and it’s well known that the federal courts will not entertain such argumentation.

The following evidence will be permitted:

1. Owned and operated vending machines

2. NH stated the church need not be registered under state law

3. Attorney Seth Hipple’s testimony on legalities of vending

4. General intent vs specific intent, intent to cause a particular result is not a defense to federal law

Crimes with general intent involve knowingly committing a criminal act. Specific intent crimes involve knowingly committing the criminal act as well as an intent to cause a particular result by committing the act.

5. The non-expert witness / FBI agent testimony will be allowed, but will not be able to give an opinion that it was Ian Freeman’s wallet, but will allow that inference

It was also revealed that the trial will likely take about two weeks to conclude, and will start on December 6th. However while the trial will start immediately it is likely that the first day of the trial will likely primarily constitute jury selection.

Liberty continues to live and grow in New Hampshire. We had 97 NHLA Endorsed Representatives and Senators elected!
We supported 158 candidates in the primary and general election and must replenish funds to be able to support liberty candidates in special elections. We are holding a PAC fundraising event at Vine 32 in Bedford on Monday, November 28th. If you can attend, we’d love to see you at the event. Please buy your ticket (which acts as a contribution to our PAC). If you can’t attend but have the means to help us prepare for what are sure to be challenging special elections in 2023, please consider donating to the PAC.

The post Running on Empty! PAC Fundraiser appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

Pro-Independence Rep Matt Santonastaso RE-ELECTED!

Earlier this year, the historic NH Independence constitutional amendment, CACR 32, was voted on in the state house. Thirteen brave state representatives stood in favor of allowing the people of NH to vote on declaring peaceful independence from the United States, which is all the bill would have done – simply let the people vote.

New Hampshire gets a lot of credit for having a thriving liberty activism migration here and many elected libertarians serving in the legislature as the “Freedom Caucus”. So, why did so many freedom-oriented state reps hide in the shadows on the CACR 32 vote? They privately would support independence, but these reps were too cowardly to show their true colors. A major objection from them was that secession isn’t popular, but the scientific polling done by the Foundation for NH Independence over the summer blew that fear out of the water, showing that nearly one-in-three Granite Staters and over 50% of NH republicans already support New Hampshire being an independent nation.

The other major objection from the reps who otherwise should have supported this issue was fear of not getting re-elected. Now we have the indisputable proof that this fear was also unfounded. Though it’s true that most of the NH population isn’t ready to secede, that doesn’t mean they don’t support putting it to a vote. According to the FNHI polling, 42% support putting the question of NH independence to voters, with 12% unsure. Still, most politicians aren’t known for their leadership and courage, so now they can look at the brave thirteen state reps who were willing to take the arrows from the loyalists to the Empire. Let’s take a look at what happened with those thirteen reps, and why it’s a success story for the NH Exit movement.

Of the thirteen reps who heroically voted in favor of CACR 32, several decided not to run again: Mark Warden, Raymond Howard, Dennis Green, Dustin Dodge, and Alan Bershstein. Of the eight running for re-election, three didn’t make it through the primary: The Seacoast’s Max Abramson who barely got defeated by 54 votes, or just over 1%. There’s no indication that his support of independence played a role in his narrow defeat. In the Lakes Region, longtime reps Glen Aldrich and CACR 32’s main sponsor Mike Sylvia lost handily to their republican opponents. However, Sylvia himself and other election observers attributed their losses to the Gunstock Mountain situation where they were targeted politically from the left and right for trying to de-fund and probably ultimately sell the state-owned ski area. That left five of the eight pro-independence reps who were seeking re-election, advancing to the primary.

All five were successfully re-elected! The big race to watch was Rindge state rep Matt Santonastaso. Santonastaso was a key leader with CACR 32 and was targeted heavily by the democrats for his support of NH independence. He doesn’t just want people to be able to vote on it, he’s a strong advocate for New Hampshire’s peaceful divorce from the United States. Every newspaper article I saw about him labeled him as a secessionist, even in the headlines. He won re-election, along with reps Glenn Bailey, Diane Kelley, Paul Terry, and Josh Yokela. Plus they gained at least one newly elected first-time representative, Jason Gerhard, who was endorsed by the newly-formed NH Independence PAC.

Empire Loyalist Brodie Deshaies, was DEFEATED in the primary!

The NHIPAC will surely be reaching out to the other new and returning liberty-oriented state reps – of which there were a record number elected this year, including a record 50 free staters – to see who is willing to go on the record in favor of freedom from the United States.

The state reps who had excuses before will probably still have excuses the next time legislation like CACR 32 comes up, but now they can’t claim they won’t win re-election or that no one supports independence, because those are simply fear-based and not the reality on-the-ground in New Hampshire.  The popularity of peaceful secession is only going to increase as the federal government continues to ratchet up the tyranny no mater which political party is running it.

What’s next for NH independence?  The newly elected and re-elected state reps have a couple of weeks to file legislation for the upcoming 2023 session that kicks off this winter.  What secession-related bills will be filed this time?  Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for the latest, and don’t forget to sign the petition if you haven’t yet.

P.S. Goodbye to the federal government’s loyalist rep, Brodie Deshaies – the young pro-tyranny state rep from Wolfeboro who was the key spokesman against CACR 32 in the state house.  Deshaies didn’t make it through the primary!  Of course a new loyalist to the Empire will rise to take his place the next time the state house debates NH independence, but the loyalists never have any argument except appeals to violence and “authority”.

Free Keene already published the damning video showing General Don Bolduc, the republican candidate for US senate in NH, lying to police to have Joa from “Breaking the Flaw” wrongfully arrested. The story and video have gone viral yet right wing publications have largely ignored the truth of the video that proves Joa never touched Bolduc. Meanwhile, Joa has filed complaints against Bolduc with Goffstown police, as Bolduc was the one who committed assault against Joa and then made false reports to police.

Bolduc has continued to lie, even after walking back his claim that he was assaulted.

Now, you can see this longer form video showing various scenes from outside the senate debate at St. Anselm College, including libertarians protesting Jeremy Kauffman being excluded from the debate, but mostly focusing on the entire arrest and subsequent release of Joa:

Should be an interesting case when it goes to trial. Joa’s arraignment is at Goffstown District Court at 8:15am on December 1st.

UPDATE: Joa has released his first-person, unedited video of the whole arrest scene.

NH Republican US Senate candidate General Don Bolduc was caught in another lie tonight. This time, claiming a libertarian activist threw a punch at him outside a debate at St Anselm College in Manchester, NH. Multiple mainstream media sites are touting the campaign’s claim that Bolduc dodged a punch from Joa of “Breaking the Flaw“. (FOX, NYPost, Breitbart, Washington Examiner)

The campaign and Bolduc himself, are lying. Joa never threw a punch nor did he even try to touch Bolduc. He did approach him and yell at him about being a warmonger, that’s it. Bolduc on the other hand immediately pointed Joa out to police, who then took him into custody as Bolduc yelled, “He hit me!” multiple times. The video clearly shows that it was in fact Bolduc who hit Joa, then feigning that he’d been hurt in the same arm with which he hit Joa. Bolduc’s supporters then roughed up Joa even further, but police didn’t arrest any of them.  Watch it for yourself:

Though Joa was arrested, he was only charged with “disorderly conduct” and “criminal trespass”. It’s noteworthy that despite Bolduc’s hollering, police did not charge Joa with assault or battery. Perhaps because they too witnessed the incident and know the truth – Bolduc lied.

There is a lot more video from this event, but I wanted to get this part out as soon as possible. Stay tuned to Free Keene for more coverage.

The New Hampshire Independence PAC helped organize a gathering of about 50 people at the Wearehouse last week and featured networking, vendors, as well as multiple speeches from NHIPAC’s Matt Sabourin, Foundation for NH Independence’s Alu Axelman, author Jordan Cannon, Benjamin Shaffer from Goldback, Club 75 Alliance’s Stephen Villee, The John Birch Society’s Matt Rhodes, Jack Shimek of the Pine Tree Radio Society, state rep candidate Jason Gerhard, and Wearehouse founder Brian Becker. This video features all the speeches from the event:

Joa from “Breaking the Flaw” was in Concord last week with me, Bonnie, and Footloose and we went to the state house with cameras rolling. We encountered a rude woman in the Governor’s office, a security agent leveled a false threat against Coconut the dog, and we had a lengthy conversation with a state rep on various issues.  Here’s the video:

Arrested for sitting peacefully at an Executive Council meeting in 2021, Frank “Footloose” Staples was back in court Friday for a trial scheduling conference on multiple “disorderly conduct” charges. As previously reported, things are always interesting when Footloose is in court. Here is the full video of the hearing in Concord District Court:

First Amendment Auditor “Press NH Now” aka Marc Manchon was arrested last year in Charlestown, NH as he was live streaming video in the police department. He was charged with “disorderly conduct”, the police’s favorite catch-all charge for people they don’t like, and “obstructing government administration”, because of the alleged actions of his viewers, which were clearly free speech. Hence, after a two hour trial he was found “not guilty” on both counts.  Here’s the full trial video:

Manchon had come to Charlestown to pick up a freedom of information request and when he interacted with the police department’s dispatcher, she refused to tell him her name. Manchon suggested people could try to find out her name, and calls began coming in to dispatch from alleged viewers that were trying to get the tax-feeding woman, Sirena Reliham, to simply identify herself, which all government bureaucrats are supposedly required to do by Article 8 of the NH Constitution. When police chief Patrick Connors arrived, rather than acknowledging his employee was out-of-line by keeping her identity a secret, he doubled down and arrested Manchon because people were calling their publicly-listed department number and asking questions, or sharing how they felt about the corruption in the Charlestown police.

“Press NH Now” Supporters in Claremont after trial.

Basically, if the government thugs don’t like why people are calling them, they will call it a crime and make arrests. Thankfully, the robed man in this case, judge Jack Yazinski, despite his clear desire to protect his buddies from accountability, did issue a “not guilty” verdict on both counts, as obviously recording video in a public place and calling a public phone number to speak with so-called “public servants” is not a crime. However, he did take the opportunity to scold Manchon prior to issuing the verdict, telling him that he was “rude and disrespectful” to the bureaucrats while expecting they be respectful to him, and that “the street does go two ways”. Yazinski is wrong – respect is earned. No bureaucrat is deserving of respect simply because they have a badge, fancy hat, or uniform. Further, Ms Reliham didn’t show Manchon the simple respect of giving her name when asked and the entire government system regularly violates people’s rights, throwing innocent people into handcuffs and destroying peaceful people’s lives. They do not respect us. They rule us, while laughably calling themselves “servants”.

Kudos to Manchon for refusing to take a plea deal and going to trial. His activism is exemplary and you can follow his channel here. For full video background on the Charlestown situation, see his playlist here.