I wanted to take the time to respond to the government propaganda department’s continued lies in regard to the Crypto6 case. The Crime3 podcast interviewed former government agents and I wanted to take the time to respond to Jenifer and Chris’s lies and manipulations regarding the case and what unfolded.

You can find the episode here:

My open letter to the scum of the universe:

What these so-called blockchain ‘experts’ leave out whom have a bias and agenda when they’re talking about traceability of cryptos like Bitcoin (due to the public nature of the block chain) is that the “evidence” they produce is not admissible at trial and they’re not experts in the subject matter within the trial context according to the courts. By getting on these podcasts they’re in a sense defrauding the public about their credentials and abilities. The prosecutors are building cases on unscientific and unreliable evidence. The blockchain ‘evidence’ does not meet the standards of scientific scrutiny needed for admission in the courts at the trial level. Let me clarify one other aspect that this is at least for the federal system as was evidenced in the Crypto6 case.

While the governments top ‘expert’ was allowed to testify she was not admitted as an expert in the courtroom, nor was the blockchain evidence she brought forth. Humorously she admitted that even the defense lawyer could re-produce her results using public websites. While it is correct that blockchain tracing can be be utilized at early stages of an investigation to try and figure who did what when and even obtain search warrants that’s a very different thing than utilizing blockchain tracing as evidence at trial. The standards of evidence to obtain a search warrant that might lead to actual evidence are much lower than the standards needed to introduce that evidence at trial. This is why a search is essential to a criminal investigation. The actual evidence is not the evidence that leads one to ‘suspect’ a crime has occurred. That’s merely an investigative tool. It’s like a hunch that something has occurred, but now you need to find actual evidence it occurred.

There are different aspects of the problem. One of them is that while you can easily trace an individual transaction it’s a very different thing and an impossible task to trace thousands of transactions without the help of specialized tools. Those specialized tools can’t be scrutinized by actual experts because of the companies behind those tools are withholding the source code. Therefore the methodology hasn’t withstood the necessary public scrutiny. What happened in the crypto6 case was that people were intimidated into taking plea deals, cases against individuals were dropped, and in the one trial that occurred a story was told based on lies and half-truths of which the evidence itself didn’t support. The jury appeared to have been unable to understand the evidence or its connection to the story being told. This or a combination of this combined with tactical attempts to make the man they were after: Ian Freeman. They tried to make him out to be a anti-government bad guy satanist who prayed on little old ladies. None of this could be farther from the truth. They used politics and a broken or rigged jury system to achieve the results they wanted. The one person in the jury pool for instance who had touched Bitcoin was thrown out as was anyone who might have had an understanding of what was occurring. He was then portrayed as an anti-government violent satanist by way of others. He hasn’t uttered a word of violence, made allegiances with Satan or worshiped Satan, or been any of the things the government has portrayed him as. They took words out of context, implied he knew about things at a time in which he did not, and worse. Being against taxation isn’t a crime, but if you can convince a jury of people pulled from only the most upstanding government worshiping citizens in society everyone is guilty regardless of any actual wrongdoing.

The ‘experts’ which spoke in the Crime3 podcast about the church of the invisible hand left out the primary tenants of I believe all of these churches twisting what they admitted to not even understanding. It’s peace: “It is our mission, inspired by God, Allah, the Universe, and the inner light – to foster peace”. You can lie about it and claim it’s anti-government, but that isn’t really an accurate portrayal of any of these churches here. The very nature of the belief system is one of peace and violence is only ever justified in defense thereof, not one of no government. It’s not a pacifist philosophy, but it’s close to it.

You can connect it to libertarianism, but if you don’t understand what that means in this context you’ll be dearly misinformed. Libertarian philosophy can be summed up as the non-aggression principle. It is the fundamental principle of morality that states that any person is permitted do everything with his property, except aggression. It’s being against the use of violence to achieve social and political objectives where those objectives aren’t defensive in nature to actual violence, theft, and coercion .

For example participants do not believe that there should be no laws. Rather they believe the only laws that should exist are ones that prohibit non-consensual violence. Violence in defense of oneself and others is completely acceptable. That’s not anti-government. No one as far as I’m aware is objecting to the prosecution of violent individuals. They’re objecting to prosecution of individuals for smoking weed, a sacrament of one of the churches in question by the way. The government here uses violence against peaceful people, not violent actors.

They present our community as one that existed as if they get to dictate our existence or that arresting a few people somehow makes it go away. In reality it’s a community of 10s of thousands in size that continues to grow every year. Both in terms of births and in terms of people migrating for peace, love, and liberty. We have significant representation in the statehouse making up as much as ¼ of the house. We even got our first state senator last year. Our churches don’t disappear just because the state or some federal agent doesn’t like us. This is at the heart of it a religious persecution and a battle over beliefs and ideas. Something that state schools give the impression was a tenant at the foundation of the nation, but for which in reality is a hypocritical modern day representation of the United States. The United Sates today is a country that has restricted religious beliefs and religious organization that do not conform or did not exist 50 years ago. Where some religious organizations are protected others are not. We aren’t allowed to setup new non-insurance based solution to health care for instance that other religious groups have had in place for over 50 years. There right to exist is enshrined in law. Ours are not. The difference is they had such organizations already which pre-date the 1950s era socialist dictate that legally changed how health care worked in the United States. We do not have freedom and we don’t have religious freedom outside specific dominant religions.

One of the messages that they keep bringing up is that there were many churches. This is a misleading representation of what was actually going on. The Shire Free Church is a church that was founded in 2010 around peace, love, and liberty. It is an interfaith church that welcomes all peaceful people whether you’re a Muslim, Jew, Catholic, Protestant, a Quaker, or something else entirely. In fact one of the board members is a Quaker. Ian, the primary political target in the Crypto6 case was just one of the people on the board of the Shire Free Church. The Shire Free Church is registered with the state of New Hampshire. Around 2017 the Shire Free Church setup a crypto outreach effort. A DBA was filed with the state to that end. This became one of these “many churches” when in reality that isn’t what a DBA is. A DBA is saying you’re representing yourself under multiple names. It does not mean you are setting up multiple entities. This made a lot of sense as the church was going to focus on spreading peace through cryptocurrency. If you don’t understand the history of money you won’t understand any of this and it can be twisted into some dubious money laundering scheme. This was the angle the government turned to when it became apparent no actual crime occurred. Lawyers were sought and advised the church how to legally sell Bitcoin long before the FBI’s investigation got off the ground.

Cryptocurrency is a non-state currency and has the potential to undermine state violence. The US government switched to a fiat currency to fund war efforts many decades ago. A fiat currency is effectively a currency that isn’t backed by anything. Previously currencies were backed by things like gold. You could go to the state or a non-government bank before that and get your gold out (the thing with real value). The government discontinued the ability of people holding dollars from getting the real money the government held on their behalf out (gold, silver, etc). This then allowed the government to print more dollars than they had gold. In turn the dollars people held become worth less and less each year and enabled and continues to enable the government to drop bombs on women and children overseas.

The churches didn’t help anyone evade income taxes. The IRS’s own website states that churches and their ministers aren’t required to file income taxes unless (unless they’re 5013c churches) except in circumstances where a minister has a side hustle at Mc Donalds more or less. Ian Freeman did not have any such side hustles where he personally brought in money. Any revenue from the sale Bitcoin went back into the coffers of the church. The federal government never showed where the money went in the case outside of the vast majority of it going back into purchasing Bitcoin. If anything their own evidence disproved this was the personal income of Ian Freeman. This all made sense too given the mission of the church was to foster peace and this particular outreach effort was to spread peace through the sale of cryptocurrency. I should point out the sale of cryptocurrency was one small part of the spreading of cryptocurrency. The church also helped businesses get setup with cryptocurrency and taught others how to use cryptocurrency. It was not about “investing” in cryptocurrency even if that is often why people buy it. What the market later turned into was not how crypto was started or why the church or our community support it. We’ve held meetups to teach people about cryptocurrency long before the sale of Bitcoin even. The church has other outreach efforts that also have nothing to do with cryptocurrency including building orphanages in Africa, helping the homeless, and even helping people and families with mental health issues. The church provided below market rate rents to numerous families struggling with addiction over the years as well as others with mental health related issues all long before it sold any cryptocurrency.

I think the framing of the feds saying that because a few people wrote donations on wire transfers to the church that the church was somehow engaging in criminal activity is just preposterous. The first donations to the church long preceded the accusations here too. Just because some people considered the proceeds from their purchases of Bitcoin donations does not make the transaction criminal. Remember the church was founded in 2010 … many years before any vending occurred. The first regular sales of Bitcoin didn’t occur until 2016-2017 which is the same time the FBI started investigating. The proceeds of cryptocurrency transactions can be donations too. If not then why haven’t you gone after eBay or sellers on eBay? eBay and a portion of it’s sellers contribute a portion of the profits from their sales to charities all the time too. It’s anywhere between 10% and 100% if my memory serves me correctly. This is a major fundraising effort. Why is it that just because this involved selling Bitcoin that those proceeds can’t also be donations?

They put forth this idea that the crypto6 are somehow tied to New Hampshire because of the 2008 financial collapse. This couldn’t be farther from the truth. These people are tied to New Hampshire through a set of beliefs and moves to the state as part of the Free State Project migration. The migration is a movement of folks who believe in promoting peace, liberty, and love for one another. It’s all about the non-aggression principle. While there is a connection between Bitcoin and the 2008 financial collapse in that Bitcoin was created in that context (to enable people to escape the government regulated banks of which many failed and whom had malicious intent) it has nothing to do with people moving to the state. It’s merely one avenue that people who have that belief system have to promote peace. This is not about Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. It’s about peace. The same people who promote Bitcoin also promote the goldback and other systems of barter for the same reasons. It’s not about individuals profiting here even if it can be said that people outside libertarian circles have mostly gotten into cryptocurrency out of an interest in profiting from the swings. The reasons these people got into crypto differ from the schmucks promoting it for personal profit, scheming, or otherwise benefiting from it (not unlike they use the dollar too might I add) with ill intent. While the media would have us all believe Bitcoin is only used for laundering money and illicit drugs it actually only makes up a tiny percentage. Likely less than that of which is funneled through fiat or US dollars as a percentage and the entirely banking system as a whole for that matter.

They continue to disparage Ian’s name through lies. Ian believes these people despite the lies have every right to tell them. Ian wouldn’t do the same in return, that is lie about what the government is doing or them. He doesn’t have to either. Lets take the the claim that Ian is constantly advocating for sex with children. This is just absurd and propaganda the government probably created. In two decades of producing Free Talk Live you’d think they’d be able to come up with some audio or video of Ian actually saying this. No one has. At best they’ve twisted advocating freedom into some bizarre child-adult sex claim that is false. Then they backed it up through false affidavits and a raid in 2016. This was likely an attempt to take Ian and at least Free Talk Live out through disparagement of his name. The FBI raided Ian’s house in 2016 with the claim that child pornography would be found. No child porn was ever found, no arrests were ever made, and the FBI was sued for the return of what they stole. The vast majority of which has been returned. Why do they feel a need to twist a message advocating peace and freedom into one that is disgusting and more representative of their despicable behavior than Ians?

Ian Freeman didn’t create the Church Of The Invisible Hand. Rich Paul (aka Mr Nobody) has been talking about it and preaching his beliefs surrounding it for a decade whether or not I or anyone else agrees with his beliefs or the Church Of The Invisible Hand. The Church Of The Invisible Hand has a mailing list and members whether or not you like it or not. The ideas behind it existed long before Mr Nobody’s involvement with crypto sales too. These sales involving Nobody and Ian and the Shire Free Church only occurred in the last year of the FBI’s investigation. It’s not even clear how or where or if the Church Of The Invisible Hand is ‘connected’ to it all. They’ve literally just taken things people have said out of context and turned it into “all these churches”. I’m surprised they didn’t bring up Gun Church. Gun Church is not connected to crypto sales and is not even a church to the best of my knowledge. Though they do accept cryptocurrency donations. It’s an entity maybe, but not a religious one. It would be more akin to the Church Of Emacs probably. Which is a way of taking sides in a debate over which text editor is better in the Unix (operating systems) / Linux world. If you twist reality enough and the meaning enough than maybe… there were all these “churches” and because these people also had a connection to crypto well… we can ignore reality and somehow say these churches were all fronts to some fraudulent end.

Free Talk Live is an outreach effort of the Shire Free Church and has been around for decades. It’s where peaceful people come together and preach about peace and communicating our ideas to the world. It’s not some “New Hampshire” thing. It’s airing on ~200 some odd radio stations around the United States. It’s akin to any other TV ministry of which I’m sure just about everyone has heard of. They may take different forms, but the gist of it is someone gets on TV and preaches about their religious viewpoints. Free Talk Live continues to air on radio stations across the United States in spite of the FBI’s attempt to take Ian out. In spite of the FBI’s arrest of Aria, Nobody, and a few others. The FBI has repeatedly failed to take out Ian and the Shire Free Church. Free Talk Live lives on. You can listen to it online at https://www.freetalklive.com/

Aria DiMezzo did form the Reformed Satanic Church, did some outreach to raise money for kids with cancer, and was around only a very short while. The FBI made arrests shortly after it was formed and so it’s hard to judge something that barely existed. It barely had time to do anything or build a membership or preach anything. However Aria DiMezzo did do some of that none-the-less via her work with the Shire Free Church. The crypto-sales however were not tied to one another. I believe the connection as was explained at Ian Freeman’s trial was that Ian had referred customers to Aria on a few occasions where the Shire Free Church was overly burdened by it’s success in its own outreach efforts.

Renee and Andrew Spinella were threatened by the government and intimidated into taking plea deals. Andrew Spinella had little to no knowledge of anything as was evidenced in court and agreed to by basically everyone including judge, prosecutor, etc. There was a connection due to some bank account where his name was on the account. He had nothing to do with selling Bitcoin. It was probably in connection to Renee that the FBI arrested him. Renee was aware of the governments displeasure with the churches Bitcoin sales and basically haphazardly tripped into what was effectively a situation she wasn’t comfortable being in. She clearly didn’t get it and probably should not have gotten into any of it in the first place. Out of an abundance of caution she quit long before the FBI raided over crypto-sales. If anyone was guilty of anything it was probably Renee humorously, but mostly being unwitting to the morals, laws, legal advice, understanding, reasons, and so forth of it all. Her view on it was not representative of our communities and she did not seem to fully understand what she was doing. She did not move to New Hampshire as a libertarian for the Free State Project. She may have come along, been a significant other in years leading up to the FBI’s 2nd raid, but may not have understood what the rest of us were preaching. She did not know about or understand the legal advice, but she did understand the threat of the feds and appeared to not believe what she was doing herself even if it was completely legal.

No one changed their identities. People did change their names over a period of a decade or longer. It wasn’t to “escape justice” as is being presented by this warped government propaganda. Rich Paul changed his name to Nobody for political reasons. He wanted to give the people of New Hampshire the opportunity to vote Nobody for mayor and later governor. I do not know the reasons Ian changed his name from Ian Benard to Ian Freeman, but it was a very long time ago. It was not a secret. It was a well known fact anyone could do a search of the internet and discover. The last person who also changed their name (?) and this is a little unclear as to when… but was Aria. Aria as we’ve always known her escaped persecution in southern Mississippi for being trans only to end up in the northern state of New Hampshire to face it from the federal government. I don’t know if this name change was a legal name change. I believe she is currently caged under her legal name issued at birth which was a male name. For someone walking around in dresses is it really unreasonable that they’re going by a more feminine sounding name? None of these name changes or aliases were secret or to hide their real identity. In fact certain people still go by their former name. Now an alias to their legal name.

The government agent speaking in this Crime3 podcast is under the belief that the church promoted Bitcoin in order to have people to sell Bitcoin to. This just doesn’t match with reality or the unfolding of events. The Shire Free Church was promoting Bitcoin long before the churches first vending machine or crypto sale. The church didn’t promote the spending or usage of Bitcoin to give people a need for Bitcoin as was stated. This is an absurd given the time frames involved and what started happening when. The church was promoting Bitcoin many years before it started selling Bitcoin and the church had no need to sell Bitcoin from a financial standpoint. The church had received significant donations at its founding including a 100 BTC bar. That’s 4.3 million dollars at today’s prices not including the value derived from its uniqueness (very few remain that have not been redeemed pushing the price of this item up beyond the 100 BTC of Bitcoin the bar contains). Ian had no need for money and long ago took a vow of poverty. He does not drive a fancy car, own a fancy home, or waste money on frivolous things either. When the church did start selling Bitcoin there were far more people demanding it than the church could ever hope to supply short of turning it into an actual business. There were plenty of places to get Bitcoin in 2016. Spreading it and I’d argue particularly locally however was still valuable act from a spiritual sort of standpoint and one from a philosophical fight stand point. No one was under the guise that the government would not start a fight even if it was completely legal. There are people that Ian and our community have interacted with over the years who did get into selling Bitcoin for profit and financially benefiting from it. That was not what happened here. One person we knew had 80 vending machines for instance many years before the FBI raided. Another person we knew had at least 20-30 if my recollection is correct. The Shire Free Church started with a single vending machine early on and added about one vending machine a year. When it raided there were 4. Ian started referring people to Aria explicitly because there were too many people wanting to purchase Bitcoin from the Shire Free Church. The church couldn’t reasonably keep up with the demand. This idea that the church had to promote its usage to sell Bitcoin is ridicules as by the time the sales started Bitcoin had already exploded. The church didn’t need to sell Bitcoin. It was already well established and financially sound.

They claim that setting up a Bitcoin vending machine is legal, but only so long as you follow the rules that have been setup by government. The problem here is that the church sought legal advice and even got the laws in New Hampshire changed to ensure it was operating well within the law. To now claim that the church wasn’t operating within the rules despite the hoop jumping it did and we as a whole did is absurd. The government at no point came to the church and said “hey- we think you’re not operating legally”. At best they sent a letter to what appeared to be thousands of vending machine operators with a name that was NOT Ian, not the Shire Free Church, and of which didn’t say you are, but only you may be operating outside the bounds of the law. The lawyers however dissagreed.

If you look at other cases the government has gone after people in you’ll notice some interesting things. For instance the federal government says you have to register with the state government, but some states don’t have any registration requirement. They don’t care. It’s literally impossible to register. You can register with the federal system and when people did that the federal government didn’t care. They claimed these people were still breaking the law. How can you require someone to register with a state that doesn’t have registration in the first place? This isn’t an issue of “just follow the rules”. The government is fabricating criminals as they don’t like certain groups of people and this is a means of going after us. The Crypto6 case is explicitly a case of the government targeting activists for political and religious reasons and Bitcoin is almost barely noticeable. It’s just their means of targeting and had it not existed there would be no change here. The government would still be persecuting Ian Freeman for some other factious crime he didn’t actually violate. It’s not even the government as a whole who is after Ian here, but in this case one specific agent it would appear named Phil Christiana. Phil has been involved in 3 separate targeted “investigations” regarding one individual Ian Freeman, and one entity: The Shire Free Church and Free Talk Live. Though he’s “investigated” many other free staters.

The feds tried to get Rich Paul to entrap Ian in 2012, tried to disparage his name by making a false affidavit and raiding over non-existent child porn in 2016. When that failed in March of 2016 they immediately started an investigation into the Bitcoin vending. Then in March of 2021 the FBI raided a 2nd time with multiple tank-like vehicles that were former actual military vehicles used in war zones. They brought in about ~56 FBI agents and something closer to 100 law enforcement agents. This over the mere selling of Bitcoin? You’d have to be a fool to believe this was just a matter of the church failing to file paperwork. This was a politically motivated attack on libertarians and our beliefs in New Hampshire. Phil Christiana was targeting Free State Project movers before Ian Freeman ever arrived in New Hampshire. Ian just became Phil Christiana’s #1 target.

There were policies in place to protect their customer’s privacy just like any bank or company has. To suggest this somehow implicates the church in illegal activity is again absurd. The church was NOT required to register with FinCEN and the church maintains that position. The case is still being fought through the courts and no final decision exists to even contradict this. The state has no regulations on people or entities selling Bitcoin and so long as you are not doing it for profit the federal regulations don’t require you to register either. There are a number of different reasons the church was not required to register as a money transmitter, but this would be one of them. Remember that long before the FBI and dozens of other 3 letter agencies raided in 2021 the church had received advice on how to operate and did operate legally. Even if the church did have to register and didn’t we’re talking about a paperwork violation here. The church had procedures in place to hinder scammers. The church did more to stop people from becoming victims of scammers than any of the banks did in this case. Every one of the “victims” that got up on the stand stated clearly that Ian called them to verify that they understood what they were purchasing. None of the banks made any attempt to stop individual transactions and one of the governments own experts from a credit union stated that they didn’t have to stop individual transactions merely because they were suspicious anyway. This was the reason that she didn’t close the Shire Free Church’s account at that very credit union. She even stated in a letter replying to Ian that the churches operations may be completely legal. Ian had written to her stating that the churches lawyers disagreed with the banks stance and asked for reconsideration. There were no complaints regarding the account or victims and many transactions had occurred. Despite her gut feelings there was nothing she could point to evidencing a problem. It was merely suspicious activity and not criminal activity that resulted in the account being closed. The government is effectively protecting banks while saying everyone else needs to stop individual transactions based on gut feelings they don’t even have.

The government is claiming the church didn’t want to know about romance scams and yet Ian testified to the fact he asked customers if they were being put up to purchasing crypto by a lover. He even went so far as to ask people if they’d ever met their significant others. The problem here is that these scammers convince their “lovers” to lie so none of this really matters as far as stopping scams. It’s just a fools errand to think these regulations or this position has some positive impact on hampering scammers. Remember that the banks didn’t ask any of these “victims” any questions. They took zero steps to stop the individual transactions. There was one person who testified that the bank told him he was laundering money and he continued to do it. Unlike that situation the man KNEW he was laundering money for a scammer. Ian nor the church ever knew about any scams or laundering that occurred. The laundering was being done by third parties, not the church, not Ian, not the banks. To whatever degree this occurred it was not a result of any person in this case except for the one man who knew he was laundering money for scammers because a bank agent told him so when they closed his account. This transaction was not related to the purchasing of Bitcoin from the church and many if not all of these victims were purchasing Bitcoin from other parties. It’s unclear how many as often these people testimony was in error or clearly incorrect. One women read a letter stating she bought her crypto from a Florida vending machine yet the Shire Free Church had no vending machines in Florida. This letter differed from what she had previously testified to.

Lets talk willful blindness for a moment since the government is claiming the church was being willfully blind. The church wasn’t required to know what people were using their crypto for because it wasn’t required unless you had to register as a money transmitter in the first place. The registration is what made that relevant. However even when that is required it isn’t what you think. This is just what the government agents want you to believe. Despite that the church was not required to ask for ID it DID where it was relevant and important. This meant every “victim” that the government brought forth was called and questioned on the phone. These people knew they were buying Bitcoin. These “victims” were asked whether or not they were purchasing Bitcoin for a boyfriend / girlfriend / partner that they did not know in person. This list of questions was more thorough than any bank doing KYC or any KYC that might have been required. These people lied. They lied because the scammers told them to. Some people should not control or retain control of their savings because they’re unable to make rational decisions. Banks aren’t required to ask what you are spending your dollars on every time you make a withdrawal or conduct a transaction.

Imagine that for a moment. Have you ever went to a fiat (cash) ATM machine to withdraw money and been asked what or who you were going to spend it with/on? I’ve NEVER had a bank ATM ask me where I was going to spend my fiat currency. This ‘not asking’ standard is clearly not willful blindness. One only thing about it for a moment to realize that. There was a sign on the vending machines that listed rules including that the wallet you were sending the crypto to was your own. This should if people obeyed it ensure that no third party scammer could get ones crypto. AKA this is KYC as KYC isn’t a specific list of things banks or money transmitters must do, but rather a bank /  money transmitter must have a KYC policy with things in it to try and thwart various criminal activity. The one rule that may have stated don’t tell us what you are doing with the crypto (this may not be accurate description of the rule as I’m taking it from what the government agent said in the podcast rather than checking it was accurate myself) was explicitly because that would complicate things for non-employees (staff here aren’t actual staff of the church, but employees of other businesses where the vending machine is setup). There were no employees of the church at these vending machines. To whom would the sign refer if not people who might be confused as employees of the church? Ian is the person who took care of technical support, not anyone else. A cashier at a bar/restaurant in which the vending machine happened to be placed would in theory all of a sudden have to know the law and then presumably do something if someone said they were planning to buy drugs with the Bitcoin [?in theory?]. These weren’t actual employees or staff of the church here. So what you might be able to imply is willful blindness here isn’t within context of the churches vending machines and other actions and operations as it pertained to selling Bitcoin and by comparison to what every bank cash ATM machines does. To take this and accept it as true would mean that every bank was committing willful blindness by not asking you where or what you were planning to spend your ATM cash withdrawals on. It’s also a silly question in that how many of us even know where we are going to spend that cash or what on? I don’t know where or what I’m going to spend it on when I withdraw it. I bet you don’t either most of the time. The same thing applies to Bitcoin purchases.

Ian went out of his way to comply with the law. Yes- he knew how others were targeted for prosecution and where they fell afoul of the law, but didn’t his refusal to make those mistakes prove he was making every effort to comply EVEN if he didn’t agree? The law doesn’t dictate what people believe. The law dictates what they must do and Ian did what he had to do, but nothing says he had to agree that drugs are bad to sell Bitcoin. He may have had to act under some set of circumstances (like if he had to register as a money transmitter) had he encountered a customer purchasing Bitcoin and then stating he was selling drugs. The reality is Ian refused to sell Bitcoin to an undercover officer claiming to be a drug dealer once he was made aware of this falsehood. He may have known this was an undercover officer by the mere fact this was a standard operating procedure used by malicious officers to prosecute innocent Bitcoin sellers, but none of that or if anything it just goes to prove he’s innocent. It doesn’t prove he’s trying to cater to criminals or that he’s being willfully blind. It proves the opposite. That he was COMPLYING with the law. They’re literally crucifying Ian for following the law while claiming he didn’t want to follow the law (even though they have no proof to that end) and therefore he’s a bad man and he should be locked up for the rest of his life.

It’s not even clear that he could have knowingly operated a money transmission business as the laws at the time did NOT include Bitcoin or cryptocurrency. The government is just intentionally blind here due to their bias. It’s not clear cut that he was operating a money transmitting business as the government apologist in the podcast is claiming. The law was changed in 2021 AFTER the FBI arrested Ian and the Crypto6 to include virtual currency. For him to knowingly done so it would have had to been clear that the Bitcoin was in fact money as defined by the law or some instrument thereof AND he was transmitting it. This is a question that remains open for debate and the lawyers disagree on which is evidenced by the very fact that different lawyers are arguing it in the courtroom. It was not transmitted like a money transmitter transmits money either. The law says to another place or person. The church sold Bitcoin to users and did NOT move money from one physical location to another or from one person to another.

Every person who bought Bitcoin online was required to provide a ID. The church had a picture of an ID for every “victim”. To suggest that they weren’t following a set of KYC procedures is a flat out lie. It may not have been what the government agents wanted, but the law does not dictate the specific of the KYC procedures. When you go to a store and purchase a gift card do they ask for your ID? I can tell you they don’t. They may have a warning about scams posted and it might be some states do require ID, but it’s not a federal mandate required by KYC. This isn’t ‘facilitating’ scammers as they want to portray it. Not even a fraction of 1% of purchasers were victims of scammers according to the governments own statistics in this case. The victims also bought Bitcoin in this case from other sellers. It was not a case where “if only the church hadn’t sold them bitcoin, or if only the church had done KYC” that these people wouldn’t have lost money. Every one of them bought Bitcoin from other sellers and a heck of a lot more Bitcoin in fact in at least some instances. Some as was previously stated were actually actively and knowingly laundering money for scammers and these same people the government is claiming are “victims” of the church. It’s absurd to claim an actual money laundering individual is a victim of a church when the church knew NOTHING about it at the time it occurred and actively tried to stop scammers/money laundering through more stringent measures than any other bank or money transmitter.

Romance scams are real, but they’re not the fault of the banks. They’re not the fault of Bitcoin sellers. They’re not the fault of Ian, the Crypto6, or the Shire Free Church. The fees were also far less than the government claimed. The government claimed 10-21% and in reality all the victims paid 10%. The church actually charged as little as 5% and all of this is well within what the market rate was for the given method. The vending machines were as low as 8%. In person it was at times as low as 5%. Online it was at least as low as 10%. The 20-21% would probably have been for new customers and via payment methods that had more risk associated with them. Vending machines in Boston are in the 20% range for comparison. The government tried to claim anything over 1-2% was insane profits when it didn’t take into account that vending Bitcoin through a vending machine has different costs associated with it than selling Bitcoin wholesale via a major online exchange. The rates in practice were below the market rates and it’s only through manipulation of the facts and of folks who do not know what the range is for fees that you can make it out as if this was some sort of “scheming” or catering toward scammers that the government would have you believe. The reason that there were actually very few victims of scams purchasing through the church is that the church had a very strict KYC policy and was relative to the methods used. In other words the policies for the vending machines were less than that of online sales. One business owner testified he was unaware of even a single minor incident until years later and another business owners testified that they were unaware of anyone becoming a victim. This includes a business owner who regularly helped people with Bitcoin, but he said that it was only once that he ever needed to ask someone to leave.

While people DID purchase Bitcoin online via sending cash on a rare occasion, and most was done via wire transfers and cash deposits every person was required to write that they understood they were purchasing Bitcoin from the church. A photo of a drivers license was required and a picture of the bank receipt with very particular wording on it. This ensured that people for the most part didn’t unknowingly purchase Bitcoin and become victims of scammers. Scams take many forms and you can’t stop all scams, but no one who purchased Bitcoin from the church was unaware of what they were doing. No “victim” thought they were purchasing a car while wiring money to the church. Bitcoin was only ever released upon the confirmation that the buyer understood that they were buying Bitcoin from the church. All of this was presented at the trial.

Notice how the agents can’t tell you how many people were impacted even though the state did reveal this statistic. They can’t tell you because they’re manipulating you. They are lying. They just say “many people”. The reality is a few people did lose a lot, but it was not as a result of the church or failures of the church to do KYC. These people lost much of their money via purchasing Bitcoin from various sellers. There were hundreds if not thousands of people selling Bitcoin. They had 7-8 victims testify, but not all of these victims were actually victims in the end. The restitution hearing is occurring on January 8th, but even before this date determines how many victims there are a number of them have been dropped. That is they’re NO LONGER victims. You would think they’d have to prove that these people were actually victims BEFORE the trial started. That is sadly not how the real world works though. In the real world you get convicted based on lies told by prosecutors, “victims”, and others with a financial interest in the case. Then who is and isn’t an actual “victim” gets figured out after the trial is over. If you throw enough “victims” up to testify it sounds like someone was harmed, but it doesn’t make it true, and certainly even if these are genuine victims it’s not the case that the church partook. In fact the judge ruled Ian did NOT have knowledge of the crime and one of the charges were thrown out as a result. Other charges should have been thrown out as well, but apparently thinking about money laundering is illegal, but knowledge is a requirement of actual money laundering. So they can convict you of conspiracy to launder money without any actual money laundering ever having occurred. And in reality without ever having thought of money laundering given that the church took many steps to thwart would-be money launders.

They claim we used the word “victimless financial crimes”, but to the extent this has some truth there are victimless financial crimes. This case is evidence of that. Whose the victim of this crime? There is a victim of a third party who actually duped someone maybe, but there is no victim of the crime here committed by the accused. Ian isn’t being accused of targeting elderly people or targeting scammers. At various point the prosecution admitted that much even if they did say it at other points. The government and the judge agreed in two separate hearings involving Renee and Mr Nobody that no one ever lost a dime. There was zero restitution owed by anyone else because there were no losses yet somehow this has now changed. Now there are victims who Ian owes money to even though there were not victims of the crimes. There were victims of third parties of which Ian didn’t know or have anything to do with… but no direct victims (and this assumes what we are being told is correct since no evidence was presented to prove these folks were victims of third parties beyond some testimony of the victims of which couldn’t even clearly remember or identify who or where they bought Bitcoin from).

The protections for consumers are a farce. The government wants you to believe these were all elderly folks yet many of the so-called victims were younger than the judge, prosecutor, and defense lawyer in the case. They also use an interesting choice of words. They facilitated money laundering, but didn’t know of the money laundering. The banks in that regard all facilitated money laundering too, but didn’t know of the money laundering occurring. Somehow one little piece of paper somehow immunizes the banks and despite the church doing more than the banks to stop scams they want to hold the sellers of Bitcoin to a higher standard. Or at least Ian. Remember, this isn’t about Bitcoin. It’s about one agent having a grudge against free staters and libertarians. How many different “crimes” does an agent have to investigate over close to two decades before he finally gets his “man”? Apparently two arrests and a disparagement of a mans reputation I suppose is the answer to this one.

Rather than make work for yourself government agents… if you really care about these “victims” maybe you should focus on actually getting laws passed to help stop vulnerable folks from being so easily victimized. The banks didn’t stop these people from wiring “large” sums of money to parties they didn’t know. It wasn’t little old vending machines in Keene New Hampshire that were the problem. It was that there was and is zero measures in place for “vulnerable” people to wire away life savings. A seller of Bitcoin can’t know if the buyer has billions of dollars and a $25,000 purchase is nothing to sneeze at. A bank on the other hand would or at least might know.

Of course if we actually solved this problem through real measures law enforcement would be out of a job, so of course they don’t want to actually solve this problem. The solution boils down to simple mathematical algorithms. You don’t need to regulate money transmission at all outside of traditional banking institutions. All you need to do is require a two-step confirmation process on the wiring of funds over a certain threshold over a particular period of time for a particular demographic. This can be based on how much is in an account, how much is normally sent out, and age. Someone whose 20 might have zero checks. Someone whose 55 might have an algorithm that stops wire transactions that are 1.5x their normal monthly expenditure / withdrawal. This shouldn’t stop them from conducting the wire, but if a 2nd person now needs to sign off on it is required it makes the amount of hoop jumping a scammer does significantly higher. Or they may need to stop in at the bank to do the wire and the bank employee maybe has to accept a certain amount of risk. That is if they wire $100,000 and it turns out to be a scam they’re on the hook for a weeks wages. Of course none of this should stop someone from spending their own money and risking everything … including sending it away to a scammer… but … it would make it more difficult for someone to be scammed and be able to excuse it away as “someone should have stopped me”. If you are really that incapable of managing your own money maybe it’s time to hand that responsibility off to someone else and stop blaming innocent intermediaries that are just doing what you asked. The rest of society should not be burdened because there are dumb or vulnerable people in the world.

The bank accounts didn’t get shut down because the rules weren’t being followed as the government is now claiming. The bank accounts got shut down mostly as a result of attempts by scammers to get elderly folks to wire funds that were then later realized to be scams. When the victim went in and told the bank the bank would pull the money back. If the money is pulled back the receiving bank has to deal with it. The seller has to deal with it. Everyone has to deal with it. The receiving bank now starts asking questions. It turns out that every receiving bank agreed with the church in regard to the KYC policy and thus the church never lost any money except for in one incident where Ian realized he made a mistake. In that instance he refunded the customer or otherwise didn’t fight it. In all the other instances he won and the receiving bank agreed with the church. Accounts may have been shut down, but it wasn’t because of a lack of KYC or criminality of some kind. The banks didn’t outright say the reason they shut down accounts typically, but it always occurred when customers pulled back money whether it was someone trying to scam the church directly (aka a scammer sent money from his own bank, then claimed he was scammed when he wasn’t) or indirectly via third party victims. The point is there was not ever a situation where “receiving bank detects scam” or lack of KYC compliance and shuts account down. The only possible time that might have occurred was with a credit union. The humorous thing is the credit union expert testified that they were allowed to permit the transactions to occur for a long while and despite suspicions no issues ever occurred. They later killed the account without money getting pulled back. That account was I believe not used to sell Bitcoin humorously. There were a dozen or so accounts, but this was over a period of 5 years. It’s not what the government is making it out to be. The church took steps to minimize the likelihood of scams because it was in everyone’s interest to stop scamming.

The government says these accounts were shut down due to suspicious activity yet that just isn’t the case. At best they can claim that may have occurred with a single credit union account that was not used to sell Bitcoin. None of the banks were brought in to testify to this “suspicious activity” claim or reason as to why an account closure occurred. None of these banks would ever say why they shut down an account either when asked by the church. There is no substance behind these agents claims that the accounts were being shut down due to suspicious activity. The agents say this and that, but the truth is somewhere else. What exactly was suspicious exactly too? Why was it that accounts were only closed after sending banks pulled money back? If an account has been used for 6 months to a year and a half with the same type of activity and no closure why did it take so long? It’s not suspicious activity that resulted in account closures. It was sending banks pulling money back that resulted in their closures. This doesn’t mean these people would have lose their money either. The sender would have had to sign a receipt saying that they understood they were buying Bitcoin from the church. This may have actually resulted in accounts getting shut down as those would-be victims may have realized that they were being scammed and gone to their bank to try and undo the transaction. In some respect that is the point of all this, but receiving banks aren’t going to like that. Undoubtedly this was more of a “we’ll take your money until it’s no longer in our interest to do so” situation. The banks never lost any money according to the government, but they did profit off all the fees they charged.

The church donation point they keep harping on was more of a handful of senders writing it as the reason they were sending the money. I have no idea if these were outright donations or the people just considered the proceeds donations or what the story was. There were all sorts of reasons people would put down as to why they were sending out a wire. Often they’d write investment or something else entirely.

The government wants you to believe that because a dozen accounts existed that can be tied to crypto by different people that it somehow is evidence of bank fraud. This just isn’t the case. They took accounts opened by different people for different entities and different reasons and put them all together and said look here all these accounts is evidence of crime! They connected the accounts through malicious descriptions. For example Ian referred customers at one point or another to Aria and even if there was no profit in it they’re now claiming it’s “one thing” or one business. Now because it’s one business those different accounts being opened is somehow bank fraud.

The series of events was more along the lines of Ian having an account in his own name, selling Bitcoin for the church, then using an account specifically for the Shire Free Church to sell Bitcoin. Then at some point it made sense to open an account specifically for selling Bitcoin and keep the Bitcoin sales separate from the other Shire Free Church account(s) (which by the way is actually what you’re suppose to do). So a DBA was registered with the state to that end and an account opened. Effectively it’s a logical succession of account creation over a 5+ year period. Over a few year period some accounts were closed, but not because of suspicious activity. It was because of scammers victims going to their bank and saying they were scammed. The sending banks would claw the money back. This would start a tug of war. Ian would have to prove that the sender knew what they were buying and the church won every case. The account would remain shut down, but not because of suspicious activity or non-compliance with KYC or anything of that nature. No bank employee ever testified to that and they would always refuse to say why an account was closed. However with enough accounts closed it becomes obvious. You need to try and minimize receiving monies that are derived from fraud before it hits your account rather than after. After the fact you can send money back maybe, but you can’t stop someone from trying to wrongly ‘claw it back’. Even when you win the account will remain closed.

Suspicious activity isn’t a crime either. It’s effectively occurs through routine activity like making deposits. If you go to the bank every day and your business brings in $7,000-$8,000 in cash because it’s a cash business that might get picked up as “suspicious activity”. It’s not illegal, but it falls within certain amounts that the bank has to report it even though its entirely routine for you and the reason you are doing it is because the bank is suppose to keep your money safe right? What would the alternative be? Keeping the money In a safe and then doing a weekly deposit? Well, a $50,000 deposit is also suspicious because of the amount of cash you are now depositing all at once. No matter how you do it the government thinks that is suspicious. Did you just buy a house and just made $150k wire and have never done that before? Well, you’re now suspicious too. There are millions of these suspicious activity reports that get filed. If you haven’t had one or another report filed on you I’d be shocked.

There was no evidence presented to suggest that large amounts of cash was dealt with outside of the vending machines. The banks don’t like dealing with cash. This would likely have been problematic. Cash by mail occurred, but was not common. The cash was mostly from vending machines.

There was no evidence of ANY profit being made. They showed the fees were charged, but the money went back into crypto mostly and it all went into the Shire Free Church.

The government didn’t prove its case. The preponderance of evidence is in theory how it works, but the government didn’t even have a blockchain expert to connect any of it together. What they did was make claims, but didn’t back those claims by any evidence. The court ruled in Ian’s favor here in at least one aspect and that was the FBI’s lead expert was NOT an expert. This humorously from a judge who thinks the blockchain is a person. Yea- he stated that in open court. The jury convicted, but the judge also later ruled the jury ruled in error as there wasn’t evidence to prove the knowledge component for at least one of the charges. That charge was thrown out. The defense will argue in future appeals all the charges should have been thrown out.

The co-spend analysis and tools didn’t withstand scientific scrutiny remember. What the government did was put a non-blockchain non-expert on the stand and we’re now suppose to believe that despite that she is NOT an expert what she said was accurate and true. At no point did they even explain blockchain or Bitcoin. They dumb’d it down to a point where they were merely making accusation without any evidence to back it up. You hit send, money appears there. Meanwhile money hasn’t been defined, sending hasn’t been defined. What does sending mean? Nothing moved from one location to another or from one person to another (as a money transmitter would be doing). You might think you understand these words and in some context you probably do. But if you don’t understand how Bitcoin works you wouldn’t understand that “sending” isn’t the same thing nor is it sending it on another behalf. The bank sent money on their customers behalf to the church. They acted as an intermediary. The church didn’t act as an intermediary to move money. The church sold it’s own Bitcoin to it’s customer. It would more akin to a US bank selling you Euros, but where Euros weren’t defined as money because Euros are new and somehow different from other currencies too. Virtual currencies were added to the money transmission law, but not until 2021. This is after the fact and if such a law existed it would be known as an ‘ex post facto law’. That’s not legal in the United States. A law must exist at the time you violated it. They can’t pass a law years later and say you broke this law that didn’t exist at the time you committed a a given act.

They’re not telling the trust again about everyone taking a plea deal (minus Ian Freeman anyway). The government dropped the charges against Colleen Fordham. She never took a plea deal and was one of the most respectable individuals in that she refused to take a plea deal. Mr Nobody was bullied into taking a plea default. His circumstances were such that he’d likely have seen a more serious outcome as a result of prior activism. Mr Nobody stood up to the FBI in 2012 refusing to wear a wire into the Keene activist center. They were after Ian Freeman. For his refusal the FBI had the state arrest him over the illegal sale of marijuana. He took that to trial and lost. He spent a year in a cage already defending Ian Freeman. While it is probably the case he should have continued to fight it Mr Nobody already had spent six months locked up over this for at best a seriously minor role in it all. Colleen Fordham didn’t even have a cryptocurrency wallet at the time and hadn’t for a number of years. They arrested her likely in an effort to get at Ian. The same is likely the case for Renee and Andrew Spenella. Andrew wasn’t even aware of what was going on. His name just happened to be on one of the bank accounts. Renee was more involved, but had not been involved for a while. She had long ago moved on. The FBI actually attempted to intimidate Renee into testifying on behalf of the FBI and this occurred 8 months or so prior to the FBI raiding. This and another incident more than tipped off the Crypto6 and community that a raid was coming. However there is a bit of thought by some that if the FBI was going to do something they probably would have done it already. However between that and the undercover FBI agent it was pretty clear that the 6AM raid was real when it finally arrived. I will admit at first I thought the FBI was elsewhere that morning… and well, they were sort of, but I didn’t immediately think Bitcoin and simultaneous coordinated raid on a half dozen of my closest friends. That took 30 seconds and about the amount of time it took me to get my car out of the driveway. I headed straight to the main location they’d be targeting: The Free Talk Live studio. I will also mention Aria did hold out on taking a plea deal and likely only got time as a result of that delay. Ultimately it’s hard to stand up to a government with unlimited resources, 100s of agents, and millions of dollars spent in an effort to entrap you in a crime you didn’t actually commit.

Despite the governments attempt to force people to testify against Ian in the Crypto6 case including otherwise would-be co-defendant it was mostly to little benefit of the government. Nothing was revealed that wasn’t already well known. What Ian did wasn’t a crime. Chris Reetman (Colleene’s husband) testified at trial for instance that he believed Ian wasn’t required to register with FinCEN even though had he gotten another crypto vending venture off the ground he would have registered. The reason for this is because of how the vending machines would have been operated. The church only ever sold its own Bitcoin. Chris on the other hand would be connecting his vending machines to an exchange and in that context he would be acting as an intermediary rather than an individual or entity just selling its own Bitcoin.

They were forced into pleading guilty under the full threat and significant violence of the government. No one genuinely admitted to anything. You forced words out of his mouth at the threat of violence.

What they also fail to state in telling us about the restitution / sentence and how Ian will pay the victims more rather than the government is that Ian requested that the penalty be minimized so as to maximize the amounts going to the victims of third party scammers should that be ordered. It was not the government requesting this. Ian would rather people who harmed him (the “victims” who testified) get more money than for the state to get anything. Why? At lest these “victims” aren’t likely to go and utilize that money to commit violence again others. The government on the other hand absolutely will utilize that money to harm other peaceful people. This is the difference between Ian and the government. The government claims to care about you whereas Ian actually cares about you.

Again they change what they claim the fees charged were. At one point during the trial it was 10-20% that they were claiming. Now it’s 5-15% in this podcast. Someone clearly read my prior posts at Free Keene. The only reporting of a 5% fee was from me. Almost no one else was aware of this number as it was an in-person number at a particular point in time many years ago and the church rarely sold to people in person. Keep in mind this was not always 5% so you may have paid 10% in later years as the costs of operating the vending machines and selling Bitcoin went up. At all points these fees were well within or even below market rates. At the time the 5% in-person rate was charged the vending machines were around 8%. Closer to Boston the non-church FinCEN registered vending machines were charging around 20%. This blows the idea that people are paying this “high fee” out of the water. KYC FinCEN registered and compliant sellers were charging substantially more than the church and the online exchanges were probably in the 1-2% range. 5% once you account for the additional labor involved and other costs isn’t so out there.

The agents in the podcast also speak of bank fees that are in the few percent range and act as if this is evidencing that it makes no sense to buy crypto at this rate. The implication is only criminals would buy and spend Bitcoin at this rate. This argument falls flat on its face once you consider that a business purchasing goods with a credit card that pays 3-5% in bank fees (credit card fees) for the goods and then turns around and sells those goods to you and also pays with a credit card just resulted in the banks netitng 6-10%. In other words the price has to jump on those goods by 10%, not the “few percent” the government is claiming. It costs a lot more to use banks than crypto. With Bitcoin or probably better compared these days to Bitcoin Cash you’d not pay anywhere near this even if you pay 10% to acquire it. The problem here is the receiver doesn’t pay 3-5% to receive your crypto once those dollars are crypto (that would be the company you end up spending that crypto you bought). This enables many merchants to discount the price of the goods for those who pay with crypto. My business offers free shipping as an example. Others offer discounts as high as 10%. It’s only through ignorance and a lack of understanding of the banking system that you can make this argument against crypto or fees sound rational. However as was pointed out some people use crypto not to save money- that is only a side effect. No. Some of us use crypto out of principle. We want to spread peace and one way to do that is by undermining the ability of government to skim value off the inflating of the dollar or other government fiat currencies (aka Euros, British Pound, etc). This is why Bitcoin is popular in libertarian circules and got adopted in libertarian circles prior to the speculators figuring out they could make a dime off it. Many today do utilize it as an investment vehicle, but that has NEVER been the reason I use crypto.

They talk about seizing 3 million in cash and cryptocurrency. The humorous part of this is that about ~$4 million of that which was seized (at today’s exchange rate anyway) was money donated to the church in 2016. It was NOT fees charged from selling Bitcoin. I’m sure the evidence to this end will be forthcoming at some point, but I also am sure plenty of people in libertarian circles are already well aware of this and witnessed that donation first hand. Maybe there is even video of this somewhere. I have not looked, but it’s also the most likely scenario given acquiring such item years after the bars were discontinued would have been costly. Given Ian and the church were around at that time regardless of what you believe about Ian it’s the most likely route into the church’s hand.

There isn’t a question about where the money went. One of the governments agents testified to the fact that most of it went right back into purchasing Bitcoin for the churches coffers. So the church didn’t get to keep $10 million dollars. At best if the church received $10 million and the average fee was 10% then it would appear the church netted $1 million. That isn’t really the case though as the church had to pay to acquire the Bitcoin and it had to pay landlords to rent the space the vending machines existed in. The church had to hire contractors to fill vending machines. The church had to do technical support for people not super familiar with Bitcoin (another reason someone would buy Bitcoin from the church likely rather than go through complicated KYC procedures, though the churches online sales were just as if not more complicated despite the lies the agents are telling). Now where did the rest of the money go? Isn’t it obvious? And shouldn’t you know that already? The Shire Free Church funded the construction of orphanages in Africa, helped the homeless in Keene, turned a church building into a Mosque for another persecuted minority, and contributed to many different worthwhile projects. You just refuse to acknowledge the good work of the church and its participants. As we’ve stated all along government employees are the real scum of the universe. They’re the ones stealing and using violence and coercion to get their way. They call it taxation and justify it through laws. These laws have real victims resulting in people losing their homes and businesses. It’s immoral, but the real scammers in this case are those falsely claiming to be going after “fraud” and humorously maybe sort of scammers. The governments own “victims” who testified in the crypto6 case all stated the FBI was NOT interested in going after the scammers. They only ever wanted Ian Freeman the “victims” claimed. It was only after calling the government out that they brought in a fed to claim something was “happening” in regard to going after the actual scammers in this case. That is NONE of the crypto6. Where are those scammers now Mr FBI??? I thought you were going to do something about the actual scammers? That’s right. Just another lie from your federal government.

There was a clear use. You just ignored it. We’ve been reporting on where that money went this entire time. We talked about it on Free Talk Live. We wrote about it at FreeKeene.com. To claim it wasn’t advertised is absurd. Aria posted about it online at least in relation to the Reformed Satanic Church. Completely separate from the Shire Free Church mind you, but Ian wrote about the Shire Free Church and we talked about it on Free Talk Live all the time. There was no paperwork filed (the church was registered with the state sadly just so you a-holes couldn’t claim it was fake) with the government, but that doesn’t mean it got spent on sex, drugs, and fancy cars. If it had the FBI would know about it because the government SURVEILLED the churches studio, infiltrated via agents, and followed us around for the last 7+ years. They mapped out Ian’s network not unlike that of the Mafia. It was disgusting considering that all Ian ever wanted was more freedom and peace in the world.

There is nothing wrong with cash and there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin (well, as it existed years ago). The two are more alike than dissimilar. Retaining the freedom of cash is NOT immoral. Your lies won’t succeed in undermining our freedom or our movement.

I ask one last question! What financial benefit did ANY of us get from this so-called scheme you claim. Last I checked there is zero evidence of ANYONE benefiting. Not at least by the size of the claimed scheme. If the one-bedroom Ian shares with his wife or ex-girlfriend counts then OK! But that’s an absurd claim and the IRS said that was 100% OK. It did not constitute taxable income for which Ian would have had to file a return, but even that is a bit much as the churches wealth was not from selling Bitcoin. It pre-dated it. But seriously- you’re not suggesting the government spent millions of dollars over 5 years to get Ian for the sake of the one-room, food, the clothes on his back, and the gas in the churches vehicle are you? That would be the most absurd waste of stolen (taxes) money ever.

No one facilitated scammers. No one! The Shire Free Church implemented a STRONGER KYC policy than any of the banks that wired money to the church. This is where said policies were warranted and no evidence exists to suggest that had a piece of paper been filed with this or that agency that the world would somehow magically be a safer place no matter how much you may want that to be true.

As to how to look at Ian and the Crypto6? I will hold Ian up as a hero, I will hold up Mr Nobody as a hero. Ian is a potential martyr particularly depending on how things continue to unfold on appeal, and certainly everyone is a victim of big corrupt government and the thieves calling themselves employees of the federal government. I will also give my respects to all the others connected to this case who suffered at the hands of government with one exception. A lying thieving fake collaborator of government: Melanie Neighbors. The Crypto6 stood relatively strong against the beatings of government and there is nothing more I could possibly ask of anyone moving to the free state. These people took the statement of intent to it’s maximum interpretation and for that I respect them greatly:

“exert the fullest practical effort toward the creation of a society in which the maximum role of government is the protection of life, liberty, and property.”

(white) goldstandard-01-03-24-H.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-01-03-24-H-y.pdf

The post House Gold Standard – January 03, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

(white) goldstandard-01-03-24-S.pdf
(gold) goldstandard-01-03-24-S-y.pdf

The post Senate Gold Standard – January 03, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

Pro-Palestinians demonstrating in so many places, including barricading JFK and LAX today. Is their goal to change minds? Intimidate? Demoralize? Will their opponents ever use the Dublin model and fight back against them? Will Trump pick Haley as V.P.? Don Jr. said he’d do anything to stop it from happening. Was a tax on unrealized gains a Trump idea or a Biden idea? Which presidents/leaders were most responsible for the growth in power of China?

The post The Conservatarian Exchange Podcast #186 appeared first on The Liberty Block.

• These are the most liberty-critical hearings for the week
• Click on the bill number to read the bill.
• Click on the committee name to email the committee your thoughts.

Of the 0 hearings in the House, we are recommending support of 0 and opposition of 0 with 0 being of interest.
Of the 41 hearings in the Senate, we are recommending support of 1 and opposition of 10 with 7 being of interest.

Position	Bill	Title	Committee	Day	Time	Room	State Analysis
Of Interest	SB369	directing the office of professional licensure and certification to provide notice of public meetings and an opportunity for comment, creating a new position, and making an appropriation therefor.	Executive Departments and Administration	Tue 1/3	1:00 PM	SH Room 103	This bill directs the office of professional licensure and certification to provide to the public notice of its meetings and an opportunity to comment in such meetings. This bill also establishes an attorney II position for the office of professional licensure and certification.
Of Interest	SB487	relative to the division of personnel in the department of administrative services.	Executive Departments and Administration	Tue 1/3	1:30 PM	SH Room 103	This bill creates a new chapter for the personnel appeals board. This bill repeals 6 statutes related to the department of administrative services division. This bill is a request from the department of administrative services.
Of Interest	SB480	relative to the administration of professional licensure and certification and the regulation of real estate practice.	Executive Departments and Administration	Tue 1/3	1:45 PM	SH Room 103	This bill requires: I. Any board or commission whose total number of active licensees exceeds 7,000 to have a dedicated, trained, and knowledgeable customer service administrator that works for the administrative section of the office of professional licensure and certification to respond to inquiries from the public and licensees. II. Makes various amendments to allow for inactive real estate licenses. III. Amends the education approval process for the real estate commission.
Oppose	SB404	relative to expanding child care professionals’ eligibility for the child care scholarship program.	Health and Human Services	Tue 1/3	1:00 PM	LOB Room 101	This bill establishes eligibility criteria for child care professionals to receive child care scholarships.
Oppose	SB499	relative to reduction of hunger for children, older adults, and people with disabilities.	Health and Human Services	Tue 1/3	1:30 PM	LOB Room 101	This bill directs the department of education to expand options for free and reduced priced meals to students and directs the department of health and human services to implement a summer EBT program to provide assistance to families with children eligible for free and reduced price meals over the summer. The bill also directs the department of health and human services to participate in the elderly simplified application project within the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to provide food assistance to eligible older adults and people with disabilities.
Oppose	SB335	relative to alcohol packaging.	Commerce	Wed 1/4	9:10 AM	SH Room 100	This bill restricts the use of certain images and phrasing in alcohol packaging that are attractive to minors.
Oppose	SB365	relative to the sale or use of lithium-ion batteries for electric bicycles, scooters, or personal electric mobility devices.	Commerce	Wed 1/4	9:20 AM	SH Room 100	This bill prohibits sales of lithium-ion batteries and electric bicycles or electric scooters that have not been certified by a nationally recognized testing laboratory.
Oppose	SB330	relative to allowing the ability to work from home to count toward unemployment benefits eligibility.	Commerce	Wed 1/4	9:30 AM	SH Room 100	This bill repeals disqualification for unemployment benefits for those not available for work outside a home.
Of Interest	SB341	relative to mandatory disclosure by school district employees to parents.	Education	Wed 1/4	9:00 AM	LOB Room 101	This bill requires all school employees to respond honestly and completely to written requests by parents regarding information relating to their children.
Of Interest	SB342	relative to school building aid funding.	Education	Wed 1/4	9:20 AM	LOB Room 101	This bill establishes a new school district building aid funding program using state funds allocated to each district and makes an appropriation therefor.
Support	SB442	relative to student eligibility for education freedom accounts.	Education	Wed 1/4	9:40 AM	LOB Room 101	This bill expands the definition of “eligible student” for the education freedom account program to include students whose enrollment transfer request was denied.
Oppose	SB522	relative to establishing an early childhood education scholarship account and making an appropriation therefor.	Education	Wed 1/4	10:00 AM	LOB Room 101	This bill requires rulemaking by the department of health and human services on child care early education and establishes an early childhood education account program to provide funds for an education freedom accounts scholarship organization to administer grants to eligible New Hampshire pre-kindergarten children for qualifying expenses.
Of Interest	SB303	relative to the use of renewable energy funds by the department of energy.	Energy and Natural Resources	Wed 1/4	9:00 AM	SH Room 103	This bill adds battery storage projects to uses of the renewable energy fund, deletes a required renewable generation incentive program, and authorizes a political subdivision incentive, rebate, or grant program using the fund. The bill also modifies the reporting date by the department of energy concerning the renewable energy fund. This bill is a request of the department of energy.
Oppose	SB541	relative to retail pet stores.	Energy and Natural Resources	Wed 1/4	9:45 AM	SH Room 103	This bill prohibits the sale of dogs and cats by retail pet shops except in certain cases.
Of Interest	CACR24	relating to reproductive freedom. Providing that all persons have the right to make their own reproductive decisions.	Judiciary	Wed 1/4	1:00 PM	SH Room 100	This constitutional amendment concurrent resolution would amend the constitution to provide that individuals shall have a right to personal reproductive autonomy.
Oppose	SB428	relative to the use of automated license plate readers by law enforcement officers.	Transportation	Wed 1/4	1:15 PM	LOB Room 101	This bill defines the appropriate use of automated license plate readers by law enforcement officers. The bill also makes an appropriation to the department of safety for digital automatic programming interface to connect data from the division of motor vehicles to the state police.
Oppose	SB580	relative to establishing a noise barrier on Teaberry Lane, Bedford, NH.	Transportation	Wed 1/4	1:30 PM	LOB Room 101	This bill mandates the construction of a noise barrier on Teaberry Lane, Bedford, NH.
Oppose	SB471	relative to adding a speed limit of 45 miles per hour on rural highways.	Transportation	Wed 1/4	2:00 PM	LOB Room 101	This bill adds a speed limit of 45 miles per hour on rural highways.

The post Bill Hearings for Week of January 01, 2024 appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.

On December 19th, the Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that due to committing insurrection, Donald Trump is ineligible to be President. Because he cannot be President, he should not be on the ballot, according to the Court. This marks the first time in history that a court has removed a presidential candidate from the ballot. The former Republican President will not be on the primary or general election ballots. 

The post Multiple States Remove Trump From Ballot, Could Cost Him The Election appeared first on The Liberty Block.

Trump disqualified from Colorado ballot by their Supreme Court; why did voters have standing in this case and no one had standing with regards to voter fraud in 2020? It is not 100% clear if the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling remains stayed until SCOTUS takes the case. Who is really disqualified by the 14th amendment? Is Colorado insurrectionist for not recognizing if Trump were to be elected President? Will SCOTUS even hear this case? Does Trump have any strategy to fight the establishment in these areas?

The post The Conservatarian Exchange Podcast #185 appeared first on The Liberty Block.

In honor of the Chanukah and Christmas season, the New Hampshire House Democrats have been celebrating some of the most kickass liberty bills proposed by Republicans this term. They have already done the work of designing cute graphics for each bill, which we appreciate.

The post NH House Dems Celebrate Liberty This Holiday Season?!?! appeared first on The Liberty Block.

Many now say the united states (the union) can't be saved. Our political differences have become so severe that they can no longer be governed with the old-fashioned American creed. 

Why Not the GOOD? illuminates how we can save this creed. It expresses the rarely-voiced posture that pedigree, education, and even past job performance are irrelevant to good government service.

The post TLB Creator Publishes First Book, Runs For POTUS in 2024 appeared first on The Liberty Block.

NEW HAMPSHIRE – For the first time in the state’s recorded history, legislators in the New Hampshire House of Representatives have filed two bills aimed at giving voters the opportunity to vote on whether or not New Hampshire will peacefully secede from the United States of America.

State Representative Matthew Santonastaso (R – Cheshire 18) has sponsored a groundbreaking new bill that will force the creation of a Secession Study Committee in the Granite State. This comes on the heels of a bill filed recently by State Rep. Jason Gerhard (R – Merrimack 25) that if passed, would allow voters to amend the New Hampshire Constitution, declaring that the state will secede from the United States should the national debt reach a staggering $40 trillion.

The Secession Study Committee, as envisioned by the bill, won’t just be a cursory look into New Hampshire declaring its peaceful independence from the United States. It will delve into understanding the multifaceted implications, the potential benefits, and the challenges that New Hampshire might face if it were to consider seceding from the Union. This initiative underscores the urgency and importance of having a well-informed discussion on the subject.

Representative Santonastaso stated,“Given the current challenges at the federal level and potential unforeseen changes in the national landscape, it’s essential to study the feasibility of an independent New Hampshire. This effort is not about neglecting our shared history; it’s about proactive planning and ensuring our state shall persist under any circumstance.”

Carla Gericke, President Emeritus of New Hampshire’s Free State Project, weighed in on the matter, stating “The increase in the number of New Hampshireites, and now our legislators, who support peacefully exiting the Union, is indicative of the Biden admin’s complete and utter failure to represent the interests of our state. The federal government have nobody to thank but themselves for the inevitable result – more and more of us want to choose freedom.”

Matt Sabourin dit Choinière, the chairman of the New Hampshire Independence Political Action Committee, commented “The purpose of these bills is to get the tough questions relating to independence out on the table, and then get some answers to the public, it’s basically an outline for future grand national strategy. My father always said growing up that if a private business were to operate the same way as the government, they’d be locked in prison. It’s time to fire D.C.”

In the state’s 2022 legislative session, the House rejected a proposal that would give voters the opportunity to amend the New Hampshire constitution, allowing the state to peacefully declare independence from the United States. While opponents of New Hampshire’s secessionist movement have historically argued that the federal government is a net positive or at the least can be molded into one, proponents have argued that the federal government is too far gone – citing issues such as inflation, ongoing wars abroad, and healthcare. New Hampshire is one of approximately 25 states that pays more in taxes to the federal government than they receive in federal funding.

Once introduced, both bills will move to committee for further discussion and review. If passed, the Secession Study Committee would be comprised of members from both the House and Senate, as well as experts in economics, law, and governance. Their findings would be presented to the state legislature for consideration.

For the full press release see: https://nhipac.org/2023/10/18/684/

This weekend, New Hampshire independence supporters launched a weekly outreach booth in Keene’s Railroad Square. In addition to sharing the word of peaceful secession with passers-by, they also conducted an informal poll, with 16 people voting to stay in the Union and 13 voting that NH should leave! Despite a fresh nationwide poll showing over 25% supporting secession for their respective states, one supporter of the federal Empire stopped at the booth to tell us that she knows everyone in New Hampshire hates us. She said secession will never happen, before storming across Main St.

Then, she turned around and came back across Main St to say something else. That’s when I pulled out my phone and started recording:

Afterwards, she went back across Main St and made a phone call. Keene police showed up minutes later and affirmed our right to record video. They also identified the woman as Democrat activist Margaret Sawyer.

The results are in from the second poll in two years asking the people of New Hampshire about their views on declaring peaceful independence from the United States. Last year, the Foundation for NH Independence commissioned a detailed poll from Survey USA which had 625 respondents and asked a couple dozen questions which measured people’s frustrations with the federal government in addition to their thoughts about whether or not New Hampshire should become an independent nation. It having been about a year since the previous poll, we decided it was time to do it again, though this time we had the chance to hire the University of New Hampshire to include several questions in their monthly “Granite State Poll“.

The Granite State Poll is a highly respected scientific polling organization in New Hampshire, and the cost wasn’t cheap so we zeroed in on the most important questions to ask. We worked with UNH’s Survey Center on the wording, which was changed somewhat from Survey USA’s. Three key questions were asked again and we added a new question to measure awareness. The UNH survey had 1,105 respondents, 76% more than the Survey USA sample. Unfortunately, the results were down across the board, in some cases by about half. Thankfully it wasn’t a total decimation, but advocates of NH Exit have a lot of work to do to increase awareness and persuade people to support peaceful independence. You can read the full NH Independence survey results from UNH here (PDF), which include demographic breakdowns.

The most positive overall result was the 28% who said “definitely not” or “probably not” to this question, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, would you want New Hampshire to join?” However, that was down from 37% on a similar question in last year’s poll, which read, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC”. This year, 46% of republicans said they’d definitely or probably not want to join the US, compared to 30% of independents and 11% of democrats. The demographic most likely to oppose joining the US was 35-49, with 35% against joining.

28% Definitely or Probably Wouldn’t Join USA

The big question though, asking specifically if people are ready to peacefully secede from the United States, did not fare as well as last year, though the question changed significantly from last year’s which was, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country” which found 29% strongly or somewhat agreeing. This year’s question was more explicit: “Would you support or oppose New Hampshire peacefully seceding from the United States and governing itself as a separate country?”, to which only 16% strongly or somewhat supported, about one in six people. The language of this year’s question reflected the language of CACR 32 which was the proposed constitutional amendment that would have put the question to a vote last year, had it passed the legislature. Opposition to secession was very strong on this year’s question, with a full 70% strongly opposed and only 6% somewhat opposed to peaceful secession, compared to last year where it was 37% strongly disagreeing and 21% somewhat disagreeing with being an independent country.

Of course, it’s worth noting here that we are comparing apples to oranges somewhat as it’s not really fair to compare results to questions that were different, as everyone knows that the way questions are asked in a poll can have an effect on the results. Regardless, one thing that remained true across both polls on the independence question is that the most pro-independence demographic is people 35-49. Last time it was 27% of that demographic supporting independence and this time 24% supported peaceful secession. Republicans were more likely to support peaceful secession, with 31% strongly or somewhat supporting, compared to 21% of independents and 2% of democrats. UNH’s survey also asked respondents about their media consumption. Of the 59 respondents who identified as Joe Rogan listeners, 38% said this question didn’t matter / they were neutral – by far the largest segment of people who didn’t care about this question. Only 44% of Rogan listeners oppose peaceful secession, but bizarrely, 80% of Rogan listeners said they would support NH joining the union.

One in Six NH People Support Peaceful Secession, But 70% Strongly Opposed

The results were slightly better, as they were last year, for the question asking whether people support putting NH Independence to a vote. This year’s question was, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully declare independence from the United States?” and 20% strongly or somewhat supported having a vote, down from last year’s 42% who said they strongly or somewhat supported the similarly worded, “Would you support or oppose the idea of New Hampshire holding a vote to find out whether voters want New Hampshire to peacefully separate from the US?” Again, republicans were more likely to support the vote with 31%, compared to 27% of independents and 8% of democrats. Ironic, considering all their talk about supporting democracy. Again, 35-49 year-olds were the strongest demographic supporting putting it to a vote, with 31% supporting. The next most supporting age demo was 50-64 at 22%.

One in Five Support Holding Vote on NH Independence

Again, curiously, Joe Rogan listeners stood out from the rest of the respondents with 33% support putting independence to a vote, while the second most supportive media group was conservative radio listeners at 24% support. Again, Rogan’s listeners were much more likely than any other media consumers to say that they were neutral or it didn’t matter to them – 42%! Rogan’s listeners were the only media group with an insignificant number of people strongly opposed to a vote, only 8%. Also, more of his listeners supported the vote than opposed it, 33% to 25%. Every other media group has massive opposition to a vote on independence, as you can see here from the below breakdown. Results go across left-to-right from Strongly Support, Somewhat Support, Neutral/Doesn’t Matter, Somewhat Oppose, Strongly Oppose, Don’t Know/Not Sure, and the total number of respondents that identified as that type of media consumer:

Media Consumption Breakdown on Vote Question

The new question on this year’s survey was regarding people’s awareness of the legislation last year: “In March of 2022, the N.H. House of Representatives rejected a proposed constitutional amendment calling for New Hampshire to peaceably declare independence from the United States and to govern itself as a separate country. How much do you recall hearing about this?” While barely anyone heard “a lot” about it, interestingly it was liberals whose awareness was higher on this than conservatives – 61% of liberals had heard something about it compared to 39% of conservatives, though liberals were far less likely to be supportive of independence, with only 1% of liberals supporting declaring peaceful independence compared to 26% of conservatives. Overall, 50% of survey respondents had heard nothing at all about the constitutional amendment last year.

Finally, UNH included a cross-tab graphic showing the relationship between opinions on secession and the theoretical question about joining the union. Excluding the obviously confused 1% who support secession but would also join the union, there are 15% who both support secession and wouldn’t join the US. There are another 9% who can see the wisdom of not joining the US, but are probably too afraid to leave the abusive federal gang:

15% Get it.

For the full demographic breakdowns, please see the full PDF provided by UNH that also lists the entire survey with all the month’s questions which also covered marijuana legalization, the debt ceiling, and immigration.

Did you notice some interesting things in the survey data that I missed in this article? Share your findings with the NH Exit community in our Matrix chat room (also on Telegram) or in the Forum.

Hopefully we’ll continue to perform polling on a yearly basis to see how beliefs change, especially as the federal oppression worsens under this administration and whichever tyrant gets elected in 2024. If a republican tyrant is elected in 2024, will the support for secession flip along R-D party lines?

On Wednesday morning, NHexit.US announced that local liberty activists in New Hampshire have hired a chartered airplane pilot to fly a pro-independence banner over the three largest cities in the state. Over the past few years, the calls for serious discussions on peaceful separation of New Hampshire from DC and the union have grown dramatically. New Hampshire is already home to the most influential liberty movement in the world.

Notable events since 2021 include:

• legislation to place an independence referendum on the ballot which was sponsored by nine lawmakers in the New Hampshire House
• a poll by SurveyUSA finding that almost 100% of NH residents strongly resent the federal government and 29% are ready to secede immediately
• increasing demands by lawmakers and the centrist governor telling the DC tyrants to back off 
• An abundance of pro-independence sentiment, including flags for the Granite Republic, hats, T-shirts, books, articles, and podcasts, and even a national anthem

This Saturday, an airplane banner could be added to that list. The tentative plan is for the banner to fly over Nashua, Manchester, and Concord. If you look up while in one of these cities, you just might be able to snap a photo or record a video of the banner. We encourage our readers to post their photos to social media with the tags #NHexit, #secession, and #NHpolitics. 

Additionally, the question of secession will be asked by another highly reputable pollster. The University of New Hampshire is currently conducting a political survey that includes multiple questions related to New Hampshire independence. The results could be published within days or a few weeks. 

 

 

The post Secession Airplane Banner Flying Over Merrimack Valley Saturday appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.

AI Biplane Over NH

On the advice of Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement, who has been a big supporter of NH Independence, we’re hiring a pilot to tow a pro-secession banner over New Hampshire’s biggest cities this Saturday, May 27th!

It’s not cheap, but it should definitely get some attention. The idea is that online or big media ads are too common and it’s hard to stand out, however aerial banners are relatively rare and tend to get people talking.

You can help get the word out about this flight, especially if you’re in the Nashua, Manchester, Concord corridor. Here’s how: if you see the plane – take a photo or video and share it on your social media with #NHexit. Of course, you should also mention your support for peaceful NH Independence.

Further, you can join our NHexit chat room on Matrix or Telegram for updates on where the plane has been spotted. It’s also a great place to keep up with the goings-on in the NH Independence movement.

New Hampshire Independence PAC Chairman Matt Sabourin dit Choinière was this week’s guest on “Free State Live”, the weekly video show hosted by Free State Project movers and liberty-loving NH natives. Of course, they discussed peaceful NH independence. Watch the full episode here:

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”.

Videos are now available on Odysee covering various aspects of the rally and the Ballot Law Commission meeting yesterday where Karen Sue Steele’s challenge of the “Independent Thirteen” failed by a 5-0 vote. Karen had been trying to get the secession-friendly state reps barred from ever holding office again.

Free Keene’s video includes a speech given by the President of the Foundation for NH Independence, Alu Axelman, the full portion of the commission meeting where the BLC heard Karen’s complaint, an interview by NBC Boston with CACR 32 co-sponsor Matt Santonastaso, and the activists confronting Karen when she leaves the building:

Dave Ridley of the Ridley Report was also on-the-scene. His video contains his reporting on the events and also multiple “ambush” videos where he speaks to various politicians and bureaucrats as they enter or exit the hearing:

Karen and her handler Kathy Slade slinked away for now. What will they try next? I’m excited to see and grateful to them for providing the NH Independence movement with so much free publicity!

NHexit Supporters Outside the State Archives Building

Today was a big day for the New Hampshire Independence movement.  Not only did Karen Sue Steele’s attempt to disqualify the “Independent Thirteen” from the ballot fail by a 5-0 vote of the Ballot Law Commission, but more importantly, the NH Attorney General’s office weighed in with their official position.

Specifically, assistant attorney general Kevin Scura who sits as an advisor on the Commission, was asked to speak to Karen’s complaint.  Karen’s email to the Commission had claimed the state reps were in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.  The Scura made it clear that “insurrection” and “rebellion” – as cited in the 14th Amendment – involve the use of violence.  This is what those of us advocating for peaceful independence have been pointing out.  A ballot measure is using the democratic process to change the system, not open violence.

Karen had claimed that insurrection doesn’t necessarily involve violence and further went so far to make the laughable claim that simply speaking words against the government would qualify as “giving aid or comfort to the enemies” of the “United States”.

The commission stated clearly that they had no jurisdiction over constitutional questions, and voted 5-0 to dismiss Karen’s complaint.  That’s great news, but it was also great news that dozens of NHexit supporters came out to support independence and even more importantly, the mainstream media was present.  Curiously, the media was nowhere to be found when CACR 32 had its public hearing earlier this year, or when the state house voted on it, but as soon as a Karen showed up to start some drama, multiple media organizations descended.  I made sure to thank Karen after the meeting for all the free publicity.

Full video coverage of the meeting and the confrontation of Karen will be posted here in the coming days.  Meanwhile, here’s a quick media rundown of some of the coverage we’ve gotten within hours of the end of the meeting today.  All of the media organizations below had reporters at today’s meeting:

• InDepthNH’s story with fair, and well, in-depth coverage.
• WMUR’s news package with some video and a great quote from Rep. Matt Santonostaso.
• NHPR with a short report.
• New Hampshire Bulletin’s coverage.

Karen Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.

A real-life Karen is targeting the “Independent Thirteen”, the thirteen courageous state representatives who earlier this year voted against killing CACR 32, the NH Independence constitutional amendment.  Karen Sue Steele of Atkinson NH has sent in a complaint to the “Ballot Law Commission” demanding the state reps be removed from office and barred from ever running again.  She emailed her complaint his weekend and Secretary of State David Scanlan forwarded her email to all the state reps involved with an invitation to the upcoming commission meeting on Wednesday August 24th, 1pm at the Archives and Records Management building at 9 Ratification Way in Concord.  All reps who have been identified in her complaint are allowed to speak at the meeting, which is open to the public.  Pro-independence activists will rally outside the building starting at noon.

Karen’s email to the Commission says:

I would very much like to get on the agenda for this Wednesday’s meeting, August 24, at 1 pm in Concord.

 

It is my assertion that the following people are no longer eligible to hold office in NH and thus are unqualified to run for office as they are in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, Section 3.

 

1) The seven (7) members of our NH House of Representatives who sponsored a bill to secede from the United States of America: 2022-2243/CACR32 – “Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation” and
2) The 13 members of the NH House of Representatives voted to not ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) or kill the bill/NH Constitutional Amendment.

 

Given the overlap, there are a total of 14 individuals who should not be allowed to run for or hold office in New Hampshire.

Karen’s wrong, of course.  Regarding her first-numbered point, the state reps in question did not sponsor a bill to secede from the United States of America, as anyone who actually bothered to read CACR 32 would know.  The bill was a proposed constitutional amendment that, if passed by over 3/5ths of the state house and senate, would have placed a question on the ballot for the people of New Hampshire to decide on whether or not to declare peaceful independence from the US.  Passing CACR 32 would merely have caused a vote of the people, and if over 2/3rds voted yes, then the constitution would have been amended to add the following to Article 7 of the NH Bill of Rights:

[Art.] 7-a.  [Independent Nation.] New Hampshire peaceably declares independence from the United States and immediately proceeds as a sovereign nation.  All other references to the United States in this constitution, state statutes and regulations are nullified.”

State Rep Mike Sylvia Speaks on the State House Floor about CACR 32

Second, we’ve heard her ridiculous claim that the US Constitution’s 14th amendment prohibits what the heroic NH reps did, from loyalist state rep Brodie Deshaies at the public hearing on CACR 32.  However, as Mike Sylvia – CACR 32’s prime sponsor – previously argued, the 14th amendment only prohibits office-holders from “engaging in insurrection or rebellion”.  Anyone who bothers to actually look up those terms in a dictionary, would see they both involve violence against the state.  Obviously a proposed vote of the people on a constitutional amendment to peaceably exit the US isn’t violence in any way, so it will be interesting to see how the Ballot Law Commission rules on this at Wednesday’s meeting.

We knew the loyalists to the Empire would be making secession a major issue this election season, which is great news!  The more attention independence receives, the more people in New Hampshire will consider peaceful secession for the first time.  The more people on the fence will be convinced to join us.  I’m grateful that Karen brought this complaint as either way the Ballot Law Commission decides will make things more exciting.  If they rule to disqualify the reps from office it could lead to an appeal to the NH Supreme Court and if they rule to keep the reps in place then it’s official that the reps were indeed working within the system’s own rules by proposing the amendment, which means Karen and her ilk will be even more frustrated.

Interestingly, Karen Sue Steele is quite the busybody around Atkinson, Danville and Rockingham County, as anyone with the ability to search the internet could discover.  Also, turns out that Karen’s not from New Hampshire, originally hailing from La Crescent, MN.  Many of the most ardent big government supporters in New Hampshire are not natives.  I wonder if Karen is willing to debate Alu Axelman about independence for NH.  He has yet to be able to find any loyalists to talk publicly about their viewpoint.  Alu also covered the news about Karen’s attack on the state reps in his detailed article at the Liberty Block.  If you’d like Karen to debate this publicly, she helpfully included her contact information in her public complaint.  Be kind if you decide to reach out:

Karen Steele
4 Pebble Brook Road
Atkinson, NH 03811
603-362-8850 – home
978-857-6048 – cell
karen.sue.steele@gmail.com

The loyalists are desperate and don’t realize what they are up against.  NH Independence is already surprisingly popular amongst NH inhabitants, with nearly one in three supporting New Hampshire being an independent nation and 52% of republicans.  See the details on the recent, first-ever Survey USA poll results here.

The recently-formed NH Independence PAC has called for supporters of an independent New Hampshire to gather for a rally starting at noon on Wednesday August 24th, outside the State Archives at 9 Ratification Way (formerly 71 South Fruit Street) in Concord prior to the start of the Ballot Law Commission meeting at 1pm.  They will then attend the meeting in support of the brave state reps who are under fire from this literal Karen.  Hope to see you there!

29% agree, “I would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.”

Thanks to the folks at the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, we now have the results (PDF, web) of their first-ever scientific poll of the people of NH on various questions related to NH independence from the United States!  Conducted by SurveyUSA, 625 adults in New Hampshire were asked 27 questions, so there’s a lot of data to go through, but here are some important takeaways.

First, 29% of all respondents either said they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.”  This alone is tremendous news! Nearly one in three already onboard is an excellent starting point to begin persuading the rest of the population. Given only 2/3rds are needed to pass a constitutional amendment, we’re almost halfway there! Another 14% said they were “not sure”, so those people are already on the fence on the issue.

Someone may claim this is a fluke poll, but it’s actually in line with another secession poll conducted in 2021 by Bright Line Watch which asked people across the country if they “support seceding from the US to form a new regional union”. It’s not as good of a question for our purposes, as we don’t want to be in a union with the rest of New England, but it does give some insight into regional interest in independence. In that poll, 34% of New Englanders said they support seceding for joining a regional union! That result is right in line with the SurveyUSA numbers targeting only NH respondents.

63% agree, “I trust my state government more than I trust the federal government.”

An even more interesting takeaway from the NH poll is that 52% of republicans say they strongly agree or somewhat agree that they “would prefer New Hampshire to govern itself as an independent country.” Plus, 11% said they were “not sure”. When the historic, proposed constitutional amendment to peacefully secede came up this year in the state house, despite having several republican sponsors, the establishment republicans spoke firmly against it. Others quietly told us they agreed with the bill, but were too afraid they’d lose their re-election if they supported it. Ultimately only thirteen voted against the establishment motion to table the bill. Now that we have the encouraging results of this poll showing majority republican support for secession, perhaps some of the state reps will find a spine. Hopefully the newly established NH Independence PAC will be able to use this data to try to persuade them to stand up in favor of independence for New Hampshire.

As the Foundation for NH Independence pointed out in their announcement of the poll numbers, over time people’s opinions can shift on an issue once considered impossible, like shall-issue gun permits. They say in 1990 that shall-issue permits were less popular than secession is today, but opinions changed and now the supermajority of states have them. Let’s look at some reasons why the numbers are going to shift in favor of independence for NH:

1. The federal government is going to become more and more oppressive, inflation is going to continue destroying peoples’ livelihoods, and war against peaceful people around the planet will continue. You can count on the feds to get more evil, regardless of who wins the election. Plus, large majorities of NH people already know the fed gov is bad, as shown by other questions on the poll:
   • 79% agreed: “The federal government’s financial decisions and economic regulations hurt our livelihoods and could lead to inflation and bankruptcy.”
   • 69% agreed: “Politicians in Washington, DC violate our rights more than they protect our rights.”
   • 64% agreed: “Laws, regulations, and court rulings coming out of Washington, DC are incompatible with New Hampshire’s culture of freedom.”
   • 63% agreed: “I trust my state government more than I trust the federal government.”
   • Only 29% of NH respondents think that the feds, “have my best interests in mind when passing legislation.”

   We already have roughly 2/3rds of people in NH who are frustrated with the federal government. As the feds continue to get worse, more and more will let go of their indoctrinated, nationalistic love of the United States and join the side of NH independence.

2. Of people over 65, only 5% strongly support secession. Time is on our side.
3. “National Divorce” has been trending in recent months and the conversations about secession are going to continue. Meanwhile people around the country are migrating to states that they consider more like-minded to their beliefs.
4. The Free State Project, a migration of libertarian activists to New Hampshire, had record movers in 2021 and 2022 may top that number. Most of these people support secession and are active. The more people talk to their neighbors and friends about independence, the more will flip to supportive.
5. Pro-independence activists in NH were energized by the historic proposal to put NH independence on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. New groups have been started, like the NH Independence PAC, which is just getting its feet wet. The now-decade-old Foundation for NH Independence has elected Alu Axelman, author and independence-superactivist to its president seat. With more liberty activists moving in and getting excited about this issue, it’s not going anywhere but forward.

Interestingly, only 39% of respondents agreed that, “If New Hampshire were not already part of the United States, it would be beneficial for the state to join, and be governed by DC.” Showing that even though some in NH aren’t ready to leave just yet, they sure wouldn’t want to join this terrible union! Further, 42% said that the question of secession should be put to New Hampshire voters, and 12% said “not sure”.

Will NH’s state reps be persuaded by these numbers?

Whenever one speaks to people about declaring independence from the United States, the number one objection is the fear that the military will be used to attack the state that is seceding. This is an understandable fear, given what happened in the 1800s. However, this poll shows it has no basis in reality, as across all eight states that were polled, an average of only 6% would support military intervention if a state secedes. While 37% would support some form of “economic sanctions”, the majority – 57% – say the state should simply be allowed to leave. Americans don’t want to kill their own families and friends just because they want to leave the union and if the federal government gets violent with a seceding state, it will only undermine their legitimacy even further.

The New Hampshire Independence movement is just getting started and I’m excited that so many people are already supportive. If you love liberty and want to secede, you should be here in NH. Come help us make this a reality sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence. You can start by signing the petition!

You can see the full results including crosstabs (PDF, web) for yourself, so feel free to dig through the data yourself!