Wednesday • December 11 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.L
Manchester, N.H.
Apparently the government thinks having large amounts of cash makes you a criminal! If so come and arrest me! Note: Lawyers will say that having or moving large amounts of cash isn’t a crime despite what the government wants you to believe and it’s not evidence of ill gotten gain either. In this case it’s business cash of my company in my possession as I write this.
Crypto6 Day 4
[the accounting of Day 4’s trial has now been updated and completed, if you already started reading day 4 you can start off where it is noted below]
When passing through security and United States Marshals asked a question or two I said “I don’t speak to liars and thieves”, to which a Marshal humorously responded “You just did”, in those EXACT words. If I had been quick thinking I would have liked to have responded with “I rest my case”.
Today there were about ~16 freedom loving crypto6 supporters in attendance in spite of little advance notice about the fact the trial was now to be held on Fridays too. Previously we had been told or it had been implied based on the estimate end date and calendar days that the trial would not be conducted on Fridays. Apparently the court can’t do basic math.
Here is my Day 4 summary:
New witness
Name: Hope Cherry
Silverspring MD
Worked for agriculture federal credit union
Worked as the VP of security
Federal credit [something or other, possibly regulated by or some similar word] USDA
The credit union has 3 branches
Q What is a credit union?
A non-profit member owned financial institution
Q Smaller?
A Mine is
Q What is shared branching?
A As one does not have a lot of locations shared branch banking enables members to make deposits at associated credit unions
Q How do you use shared branch banking?
A Most use it for deposit and withdraws
Q What do you do?
A I’m a compliance officer
Q Bank secrecy officer?
A Make sure in compliance with law
Q Are you required to register with FinCEN?
A Yes
Q Do you have to have anti money laundering program?
A Yes
Q Do you have to have an anti money laundering program?
A Yes
Q Does it have a reporting requirement?
A Yes, anything in excess of $10,000
[what is interesting about this is that they’re not claiming he was required to register as a bank and money transmitters are regulated differently than banks of which they are saying is he required to register as, though the defense is claiming or will be claiming he was legally advised by state and a lawyer that the church was NOT required to register given the way the church operated its vending or crypto sales operations… it’s also important to note that if you are doing a check or credit card or something similar via a bank these things are not required of businesses selling stuff]
Q Anything else?
A Yes, also SAR
Q Like?
A If we suspect exploitation or elder abuse
Q What did you collect to comply with these laws?
A Name, Address, TAX ID, day to day transaction of the person
Q Do FinCEN give guidance on filing a suspicious activity report and what it is?
A Yes
Q How does someone open an account?
A Come in or online
ID, Name, address, tax ID, employment, use
Q Do you know Ian Freeman?
A Yes
Q How did he open an account?
A Online
Q Type of account opened?
A Personal
[something to note is that someone operating a business from a personal account is ok, one can also do business without registering a corporation, trade name, doing business as, etc, with some restriction possibly, but basically if you aren’t incorporated you’re generally a sole proprietor, but it may also be unclear what you should register as if you are another type of entity like a non-profit or a church]
Q Purpose listed?
A Household
[It is also the case that one might open an account for one purpose and end up using it for another, there is nothing indicating to the opener what a personal or business account are or which one to choose either or why in most instances but it also usually will come down to marketing of features even if, so one for example might open a business account if they do a lot of wire transfers because then they don’t have to go into the bank to conduct the wire transfer, but that will usually cost more, so you might prefer a personal account for a business if not much business is going to go through it, or only certain types of transactions will be passing through it]
Q Source of funds?
A $500k in transactions / month, location NH, it was unusual, and only application we’ve had from NH
Q Type of activity expected?
A Regular stuff, paychecks, bills, etc
[that is curiously maliciously answered response considering I know for a fact many small business are sole proprietors and will also use personal accounts for business, not just bills and paychecks, I both have had sole proprietor businesses and did work for MANY MANY other small businesses operated in the same LEGAL way]
Q Anything stuck out about this account opening?
A We checked into it and there were multiple inquires from other institutions
Q Example?
A Check tax ID correct, etc
Q If it was suspicious why did you open it anyways?
A This does not mean he is up to no good
[they are showing a bank statement on the screen]
Q What month was this?
A 2nd
Q What does ver. Mean?
A Verify account # is correct
statement shows deposits from all over the country
Q Anything suspicious? Did you file a report?
A Yes
[this is humorous because I also operated a computer repair business at one time with deposits coming in from all over the country… in and of itself this is NOT or should not be suspicious.. in my case contractors would deposit checks and cash into the business account once conducting repair work for customers and I’d then pay them per agreed terms for said work, and this is actually very common and there were far far far larger players in this field than me, in fact Dell did something similar for years, and other smaller players focus exclusively on contracting out repair work to third parties and then pay their contractors this way to such a degree they have custom developer websites and portals for it all]
Q Was there information from any other credit union(s) available?
A I asked others and got told they were seeing deposits and names of people making deposits
[Share branch deposit tick shown on screen with a $6,700 ticket]
Q What is this photo?
A I asked for a photo of the person making the deposit
[they bring up a page on screen from a currency transaction report]
Q What does this show?
A Someone other than the person owning the account made a deposit
[again none of that should be suspicious in and of itself, this is common with businesses for a variety of reasons, one is to avoid fees, wire fees have a $15-40 cost for instance whereas cash or check deposit is free and faster than mailing it and you avoid credit card fees, for years I paid a couple other small businesses that supplied my company with certain products or components used in products with a check from my bank, but I’d stop at their bank to make the deposit directly into their checking accounts as it was far far easier than mailing the check and cheaper than using a credit card and for that we would get a 1-3% additional discount on top of another discount we already got, my company sells computers and accessories for clarity on what we did/do aka ThinkPenguin.com ]
Q Did they get ID?
A Yes
[this is or was uncommon, I don’t think I’ve ever been asked for ID to deposit money into someone elses account and this is not or was not a standard procedure at most banks, though it’s possible in recent years it has become more common, but based on what I’ve heard at trial it sounds like this is still rare, but done at least at one financial institution]
Back to statement on screen
Q Stop after 12/6?
A Right, and serious concern about source of money so we restricted account
This activity cause us to talk to Mr Freeman
I called Mr Freeman and he said he was dealing in rare coins
Turned out to be virtual currency
Drilled down and found virtual currency
[she’s admitting that Mr Freeman was not dishonest about his use of the account and told them what it was being used for when asked for further details here which is the exact opposite of the governments claims that he lied to banks, they may not have understood that rare coins is an accurate description for what he was involved in, but as will or was demonstrated through anothers testimony who better although still poorly understood bitcoin that bitcoin has the word coin in it and what makes bitcoin valuable is its rarity, there are only 21 million coins that will ever be ‘minted’, and bitcoin when explaining it to people is commonly explained by comparison to gold and silver in that it’s valuable because of its rarity]
[it’s funny how I had a similar banking situation for years and years and no one ever restricted my account or asked questions about it, now there was one difference and that was that I believe I was using an actual bank rather than a credit union for business at the time, but there was a time where I used a credit union too, and it is possible that they would have seen this as suspicious as running a business from a credit union account while possible is less common, so to them it might have been seen as odd by comparison to other customers, the reason it’s hard to do business with a credit union as a business is usually due to wire transfers having to go through a bank and thus you end up with multiple intermediaries where mistakes can occur in the wire process… I actually closed a credit union account after a few years because it was just too much of a pain in the neck because of this, though not all small businesses do a lot of wire transfers, so I suspect at least some small businesses still do use a credit union over a bank like I did for my business for a while]
Q How did you feel about this?
A It was a red flag, but unsure about it
Q Type of business when asked?
A Shire Free Church
Q Did you search for it?
A Yes, I found the church with a search
Q Make any conclusion?
A It was a little different type of church
We felt we were dealing with and he was not registered
[ while I can’t speak with certainty it is my belief that it was probably the case that the Shire Free Church was not registered with any government at that time, and at some point something did get registered because of this incorrect assumption by financial institutions about the law, or at least they felt obligated to see that a church was registered even if not because of their own legal requirements, and it’s my understanding that churches can’t be required to register with the government because of other supreme court precedent, but that doesn’t mean you can’t register either, and many churches are registered in one way or another with government(s) in the united states at I believe the state level]
Q Did you close his account?
A We suggested he close it or we would
Defense cross examines the witness
Q You are employed as fraud officer?
A Yes
29 years
Q He applied in his name?
A Yes
Q Not a fake name?
A Yes, it was his real name
Q Address?
A Yes, it was a real address
Q He opened for minimum amount of money like most people do?
A Yes
Q $55,000?
A It went to buy bitcoin
Q Made deposit and purchased bitcoin?
A Yes
Q When opened account some red flags?
A No clear cut reason to say no
[this was a simple yes or no question she answered with a sentence… she was trying to avoid giving the defense evidence of innocents here because what this shows is that you don’t have to refuse business with people just because there are red flags and not even financial institutions who actually have to register need refuse service, so that begs the question why should a church who sells bitcoin and isn’t required to register as a money transmitter let alone a bank have to… remember she is also competing with bitcoin and as a competitor she doesn’t want this bitcoin thing to take off because it puts them out of business]
Q When asked for drivers license he provided it right?
A Yes
Q he didn’t stop doing business right?
A No
Q He was compliant right?
A Yes
Q No negative balance right?
A No
Q All positive searches?
A Yes
Q When did you find out cash coming in?
A We have a report, but didn’t immediate stop it
Q Shared branch did business with victim?
A Yes
Q Was there a problem?
A Concern, yes
Q Shared branch bank allowed it despite concerns right?
A Yes
Q She still has money in her account right?
A I can’t tell you
Q This one isn’t in her late 80s or even 70s right?
A Yes, that’s right, she is in her 50’s
Q She was a school teacher right?
A Yes
Q Because over $12,000 a report was filed right?
A Yes
Q They didn’t refuse it right?
A Right
Q Did teller have any problem with 2nd transaction shown?
A No, not that I’m aware of
Q He gave account info on how to contact him right?
A Correct
[ at this point the judge criticizes prosecutor for wanting to censor his own evidence]
[Exhibit on email communications between ian and bank compliance officer shown on screen]
[It’s admitted for what they call a limited purpose]
Judge says ~“can’t be considered true statements, only to understand his point of view, and to round up and understand conversation”
Overview of letter:
Letter explains Ian is a minister of church and law does not apply according to his lawyers. He explains why he thinks the compliance officer is wrong to close account.
There is no difference between vending person to person and selling online.
New Hampshire says “we don’t regulate that”
[this is a reference to what the banking department of New Hampshire stated prior to the state removing their authority to regulate cryptocurrency businesses, meaning the state already wasn’t regulating even if the banking department had the authority to do so before the bill removing their authority passed: https://freekeene.com/2016/09/29/full-video-of-nh-state-house-commission-to-study-cryptocurrency-first-meeting/ ]
The letter says the church conducts know your customer and gets IDs of buyers to stop fraud that is rampant in the online world.
We confirm buyer knows they are buying coins.
[He uses coins in regular conversation and not just “rare coin” when convenient. I believe later on there is evidence Ian even goes out of the way to call customers that he thinks may be getting scammed to ensure they know what they are doing. So much for the claim he didn’t stop transactions that were red flags. Notice though that the credit union lady already said they weren’t stopping transactions because of red flags because that isn’t what the law actually requires.]
Q Is that an accurate letter?
A Yes it is
Q Can you recall attached letter?
A Yes
[the attached letter is separate to the email discussed above]
It was NH banking commission
[while I’ve seen this letter I haven’t been able to locate it online anywhere unfortunately, not on FreeKeene.com nor in the docket, but the letter exists and was displayed in court]
Q You did send his remaining balance to him?
A Correct, there was no suspicion of wrongdoing
[aww wait wait wait what??? didn’t you just close his account for some sort of wrongdoing? Now you are agreeing with the defense that no wrongdoing on his part occurred? What this is suggesting is that the reason they closed the account was of liability on their part, not wrongdoing on the Shire Free Church’s part nor Ian Freeman]
Prosecutor cross examines
Q Did you speak to victim?
A Yes
Q How did you feel after talking to victim?
A I felt she could be victim of scam
[notice we don’t have any evidence that she is a victim of a scam and I’m not even sure they presented evidence she was a victim of a scam here, though this case is so unclear it’s hard to say one way or another, lots of “evidence”, but much of it is to make you feel bad, not that there is evidence of a crime, or at least not of Ian Freeman or the Shire Free Church, and remember the bank let this transaction through too, not just Ian Freeman]
Judy admits in writing to Ian Freeman/Church that the letter is “compelling” evidence of his argument.
Q Do you believe he was honest after using personal account for business?
A No
[this is such a load of crap, people use “personal” accounts for business all the time and she’d know that as the compliance officer, a sole proprietor is a non-registered entity effectively that is representing themselves unless they have a doing business as, but even in that case they are still a sole proprietor and would normally likely open a personal account for business because of the way taxes are conducted even if they have a separate personal account for their business activities separate from their bills/personal stuff]
Defense cross examines
Q Ian wasn’t taking deposits right?
A Correct
Q It would be up to each branch to stop transactions right?
A Not as clear cut as that
[she’s admitting that you only have to stop a transaction if you believe it suspect, and even then not necessarily which backs up the fact that simply doing some amount of due diligence even if you can’t confirm someone isn’t being scammed is sufficient under the law, thus Ian calling people who he thinks might be victims and getting additional verification from them about the transaction is exactly the same level of compliance that the banks do, but unlike the banks he has no legal obligation to do it on behalf of the church because he is neither a financial institution nor a money transmitter under the law, and while this COULD be different for another business if operated differently that wasn’t the case here, selling your own bitcoin from your own wallet does not make one a money transmitter, but an actual bitcoin exchange would make one a money transmitter under the law because you are acting as middlemen in the transaction and moving money or value from one location to another or one place to another, this is exactly what the law says, and the church didn’t do that]
Q They don’t try and stop it?
A [Silence]
Q Ian couldn’t stop it right?
A Correct
[wow, just wow, remember that this is the prosecutor’s own witness and has come in with an agenda of making Ian Freeman look bad]
Q They [the teller] took the deposit right?
A Correct
Q They [the teller] had control over that transaction right?
A Correct
Q Mr Freeman wasn’t there?
A Correct
Q He didn’t see any tell tail signs of a scam, right?
A Correct
Q If red flags existed Mr Freeman wouldn’t have known, right?
A Correct
Q The only person who could have stopped it was the branch employees, right?
A Correct
Q Is it policy to return funds to illegal transactions?
A What were we supposed to do?
[she doesn’t want to answer this one!!! I wonder why]
Q Did you ever sit down with FinCEN?
A No
Prosecutor asks some more questions
Q Do you know what Ian said that led to these people to deposit money?
A No
[how about what the fraudster said if this was a case someone was scammed because Ian wouldn’t have known what they told the victim and the bank wouldn’t have known either, this is a man in the middle scam, it’s neither the bank nor Ian/the Shire Free Church whom are to blame]
New witness
Name: Bruce Sweet
US Postal inspector
Federal agent related to crimes involving US mail
He works with drugs, money laundering, etc
Q Was Ian investigated?
A Yes
We investigated a package going to the church at shipping shack mail box
It was addressed to the shire free church
We open’d it and found a galaxy s phone box with cash inside it
It had $4,000 inside it
Box was from same victim as prior bank victim
Defense cross examines
Q Was complaint from victim?
A No
Q Do you know what cash was for?
A Yes, bitcoin
Q Wasn’t for drugs, right?
A Yes, it wasn’t for drugs
Q Legal product right?
A Yes
New witness
Name Paul Priosey
US Treasury IRS criminal investigation special agent
14 years
Investigated potential violations of the law like money laundering
Based out of charlot Virginia
Previously based out of NY
Q Was Ian investigated?
A Yes
Undercover doing transaction with Ian Freeman
Q What did Ian use? [forms of payment presumably]
A It depends
Q What was your role?
A Conduct bitcoin transactions with freeman
Q How long was your part in the investigation?
A One year
Q Much of it in writing?
A Yes
Q How did you connect with freeman?
A localbitcoin.com
Q Who told you where to start?
A Yea, others
[transactions shown on screen from 2019]
confirms he did these transactions with ian on localbitcoin.com
Q Why did you ask Ian to do a transaction off localbitcoin.com?
A It was easier
[curious – so they aren’t suggesting doing it off localbitcoin.com is to hide some sort of crime]
Q Transaction size?
A $502
“video” pulled up of conversation on telegram
[the prosecutor doesn’t understand what the word means, but none the less telegram is pulled up on the screen]
Q Can you ID defendant?
A Yes blue shirt
[in the room he identifies defendant]
Q Why did you tell freeman wire to bank account wasn’t working if that wasn’t true?
A To get another bank account
[agent openly admits he lied to mr freeman, a red flag you’re dealing with an undercover agent and I have to wonder if Ian wasn’t thinking this too at the time because it’s rare for stuff to not work like this for no apparent reason, but stupid could also explain it]
[chat logs on the screen show agent tried to get ian to do an in person sale after making a series of cash transactions into bank accounts]
Q Did he ask about source of funds?
A No
Q He told you what to tell the bank?
A Yes
[The undercover talks about church events like social sunday, night cap, crypto meetup, new vending machine at thirsty own, does $1000 transaction at vending machine, etc]
Q Asks no questions about why you have so much cash?
A No
[does $1500 constitute a lot of cash these days? If so I must be guilty of being a criminal… there is I believe $8k in cash in my hand right here or thereabout I believe and cash isn’t a crime, and do you know where I got this cash? the bank, and do you know the upstream source of this cash? a legitimate business where I sell computers and accessories called ThinkPenguin.com, and do you know what a lawyer would tell you? Possessing large amounts of cash isn’t a crime! :
[Day 4 continues from here… ]
Q Where did you meetup?
A Central square
Q Who there?
A Aria, Ia, Nobody
Q Was it recorded?
A Yes
Q Was it clear?
A No enough
Q We have short clip, does it accurately report what was said?
A Yes
[They play the audio clip in court. It’s entirely unclear what was said other than “I don’t know. I’m gay” which is humorously something I said in response to someone else. Pretty sure that doesn’t make any of us criminals unless they criminalized me when I wasn’t looking. The agent said something about “infiltrating” our group which is humorous as it is an open to the public group on Telegram or was at the time Monadnock Cryptocurrency Network, and now on Matrix.. this clearly isn’t the brightest fed in the room and it was repeatedly stated by us over the years that the room had or likely had feds it… not that anyone was doing anything illegal, but people should be conscious of the fact that thugs were lying in wait to pounce on folks for doing legal things…]
A chat log containing conversation with Ian is put up on screen.
“only suckers pay tax on crypto
Also how was I obligated to pay taxes created in the first place?”
More Ian quotes from chat log shown:
“they sent a threatening letter to cvm operators a year ago
we all ignored it”
[the interesting part of this is that the church and Ian ignored it because legal council had already been advised that the church was operating in a way that didn’t require registration, which of course the government completely ignores that aspect of it all, and is actively fighting to keep evidence of this out, though they failed]
Ian chat log:
“I can’t sell you crypto because you told me too much”
[this is in response to the undercover fed who pretended to be a drug dealer, and there is NOTHING wrong with what is being said as the law says KNOWINGLY, so once you know you can’t, but prior to that you can, this is actually evidence Ian and the church were not committing a crime even though he may have wanted to]
More Ian chat log:
“I can’t KNOWINGLY assist you with your financial matters”
[again KNOWINGLY is literally in the law, yet this is what the feds are claiming was a ‘wink and a nod’ that it was “OK” to buy crypto from him despite NOT helping him with buying crypto or other financial matters]
Fed asks “Why not?”
Ian responds:
“You told me you sell drugs”
“Money laundering is knowing of illegal activity”
“I advocate for ending the war on drugs and responsible use of various substances”
[The undercover fed pretending to be a drug dealer came to a meetup and recorded audio and video at meetup.]
The prosecutor plays a VERY short video clip on screen.
Video shows nothing Ian and him saying machine is still at thirsty owl.
Q Agent say “You can still use it”
A Yes
[this was false… wait till the cross examination … it gets interesting ]
Q What did you do next?
A Went to thirsty owl and bought $20,000 from machine
They show a receipt of the money bought from the vending machine on screen
Q What was fee?
A 14%
Aug 25, 2020(?)
Defense gets up and cross examines undercover agent pretending to be a drug dealer
Q Purpose of undercover is to obtain evidence of criminal activity through deception, right?
A Yes
Q Sometimes it works and sometimes it does not right?
A Yes
Q No problems nothing illegal about the first dozen transactions, right?
A Yes
Q Telegram used because it is easier right?
A Yes
[interesting because I half expected them to try and claim it was used to cover up criminal activity, claiming something about encryption, when in fact Telegram is NOT end-to-end encrypted, but they didn’t go there in this case like they have in certain other cases in the past 5 years]
Q Why didn’t you disagree with him if investment wasn’t why you were buying bitcoin?
A Because I have a strategy to get conviction
[hmmmm so you don’t care about how you achieve the results, only that you achieve results]
Q Did you want to be willfully ignorant?
A No, just following directions
Q He didn’t say you couldn’t ask questions right?
A No
Q How do you know that his intent was to donate part of transaction to church?
A I didn’t
Q Meetup wasn’t illegal right?
A No
Q Nothing illegal about being a libertarian crypto guy right?
A No
Q You wanted to do this to further the trust aspect?
A Yes
Q Your goal was to get him to do something illegal?
A Yes
[How is this not entrapment???? definition of entrapment: the action of tricking someone into committing a crime in order to secure their prosecution.]
Q You want him to slip-up and fall?
A Yes, depending on how transactions go
Q you did not correct anything, right?
A Right
Q Did he ever say he wanted to lie?
A If asked to tell then it was donation or investment
Q But you did not ask Ian why that was, right?
A No
Q Ian dropped from 14% fee to a 10% fee for you right?
A Yes
Q He wanted your legal business, right?
A Yes
Q If they didn’t like you no break right? [if he didn’t like you he wouldn’t have given you a break, right]
A Yes
Q If they didn’t like you no break right?
A It depends but usually yea
Q Before [he knew of your criminal dealings he gave you a] 10% rate, but not once he knew you were involved in drug activity, right?
A Yes
Q Once he knew he didn’t want to do business with you right?
A Yes
Q Even after you didn’t stop trying to get him to commit crime right?
A Yes
[there is an aspect of entrapment in the law that basically says the government can’t try and get you commit a crime you wouldn’t already have committed on your own, which is probably why the lawyers asking these questions, they can hang out with you, but they can’t ask to buy drugs from you, if you are a drug dealer, but if after befriending them they try and buy drugs from you- then it’s not entrapment- it’s something along these lines anyway- but trying to win a fight with the government over entrapment is hard as everything favors them]
Q Despite insistence you still tried, right?
A Right
Q “I can’t tell you you can do that”, he said that right?
A Yes
Q You asked him specifically about using machine, right?
A He said I can’t tell you you can use it
[the fed admits that he lied previously on the stand under oath and that Ian didn’t say he could use the vending machine]
Q He said he can’t deal with you any more?
A Yea, but he said knowingly
[aww yea, cause buddy, he knew you were a fed, and he was quoting a key aspect of FEDERAL LAW]
Q You did ask and did get answer right?
A Yes
Q You put money in machine and out came receipts right?
A Yes
Q When he wanted you it was a 10% rate and after what was it?
A 14%
[ie the vending machine was 14% and Ian was giving the guy a 10% rate up until he couldn’t legally do business with him any more]
Q You did it on your own right?
A Yes
Q And this is a guy who gave you a break when he thought you were legal, right?
A Yes
Q You speculated, right?
A Yes, but he knew based on prior conversations!
[referencing that wink and a nod comment he made previously]
Prosecutor asks questions:
Q You broke his rule by telling him what you do right?
A Yes
Q What did he understand your intent to be?
A Ian said “If you mail UPS or Fedex because private mail service they can open package, but if USPS they supposedly need warrant so probably best with track + signature required”
[yea, this doesn’t mean he thinks you’re doing anything criminal, it’s also protection potentially from companies one might not trust, and I’m pretty sure there was evidence presented to this end, but he was saying some people trust USPS over UPS/Fedex because supposedly USPS needs a warrant whereas the others don’t, not that he even thinks this necessarily, he wasn’t the one with this concern, you were]
Q Is it your experience when people talk about search warrants they talking about criminal activity?
A Yes
[everyone thought this guy was a fed, hard to believe anything from this liars mouth]
[actual friends were given way better in person rates too at certain points as low as I believe 5% at one point, which was also the normal in person rate people were charging, so the market rate at the time, I can’t speak to later on, which probably would have been higher, but I suspect it wouldn’t have been 10%, but still would have been lower]
Defense cross examines witness again:
Q You did break the golden rule, you said you do something illegal?
A Yes
Q If you tell the bank you are a drug dealer they won’t do business with you either right?
A Yes
Q UPS is different right?
A Yes
Q USPS is safer right? Protect by government, right?
A Yes
Q But fedex you don’t know who is touching your stuff right?
A Right
Q They might have a criminal record right?
A Yes
Q One reason to suggest USPS is because it is safer, ever think about that?
A No
Q Postal is more regulated right?
A Everyone has there preferences
[humorously he didn’t answer the question]
Q It isn’t illegal to mail cash right?
A Right, send whatever you want
Q Did you ever ask why USPS over fedex specifically?
A He answered in voice
Q He said search warrant right?
A Yes
Q Makes it more secure right?
A Yes
Q You said it was legal to mail cash right?
A Yes
Q To get a search warrant illegal activity must be suspected, right?
A Yes
Q It starts warning people of scams right?
A Yes
[they are referencing the signs a the crypto vending machines]
Q Did he tell anyone to scam, or he activity sit there and let people get scammed?
A “I don’t recall”
[wow-really? are you kidding me? Does anybody believe this liar? why would you invest in a machine if a person was going to do the job??? this makes no sense and I have a hard time believing a jury if they’re following this would believe it either]
Q He specifically told you he didn’t want to do business with you right?
A Yes
Q “I can’t tell you you can use it” right?
A Yes
New witness
Name: Renee Spinella
25 years old
Married to Andrew Spinella
Live in Manchester
Completed high school 2014
Employment history: waitress
Q Know freeman?
A Yes, a decade
Q How did you first meet him?
A I don’t recall
We started dating in 2014
Q 2014-2017 living at his house?
A Yes
Q Professional relationship after breakup?
A Yes
Q What is this agreement?
A Agreed to generally help me move on
[the agreement they are referring to was effectively a breakup agreement that provided Renee with a bit of cash to move on with her life and was clearly not something Ian had to do because of some sort of court order, but simply because he was a good guy and wished the best for her, and I think those around Ian also were aware of his best intents for her even if not this agreement]
Q You had separate agreement for shire free church?
A Yes, selling bitcoin
Q Were you charged?
A Yes to one charge
Q Do you have immunity here?
A Yes
Q How long did you do the job?
A 2017-2021
Q Did you write contract?
A No
Q Do you know who wrote it?
A No, someone from the church
Q How did you communicate?
A Text, telegram, signal
Summary of screen chat log or similar content: Renee was told by Ian to tell banks she traded and banks would assume she was talking about trading stocks and commodities.
[what is interesting about this is that the day of the 2021 FBI raid the half dozen different 3 letter federal government agencies were all arguing about what to call bitcoin… some were saying it was a commodity, some were saying it was a currency, some were saying it was a security… if the government can’t come up with a straight answer here why is this a problem?? ]
Q Did you sell stocks and commodities?
A Bitcoin is a commodity isn’t it?
[to be fair I’m not sure even Renee knew, but probably thought yes here, but given government doesn’t know how is this even a fair question?]
Q Why did you say in chat he was rich?
A People making normal salaries are rich to me, as I’ve always been poor
ItBit log shows they want money service business registration stuff if operating an ATM
Government shows Ian saying “fuck” in the chat log to the demand for money service business registration documents
[something to note is that most people hate documentation of any kind or having to provide it whether or not they doing something criminal, being disgusted by this is not evidence of anything]
Q Did you open accounts for Mr freeman?
A For the church
Q Did it seem like a lot of money or a bit
A “A bit”
Q Would Ian review chats for you?
A Yes
Ian helps Renee with dealing with banks, itbit, and others, and making letterhead for crypto church
They play audio of FTL show talking about Nigerian scam
[totally missed the point of this audio clip, I guess we are suppose to assume he’s guilty because he is aware of some Nigerian’s scamming folks? I guess you shouldn’t do business with folks in an entire country just cause there are some bad apples… but of course if we took this literally then no one could do business anywhere because there are scammers everywhere]
End of day 4!
[Renee gets sick so she isn’t going to be coming back to testify until at least day 8 of the trial (ie which will probably be 12/19/22 assuming she tests negative for COVID and is feeling up to it), but her testimony is not over, and the defense has not had a chance to cross examine yet either, also two days were canceled of the trial already due to her and her attorney coming down ill]
Melanie Neighbours On Witness Stand
Today was a very sad day. I heard from what I considered a good friend turn on another good friend during day 5’s Crypto6 trial. While I knew Melanie Neighbours had some misgivings I had never imagined that she would actively work against Ian Freeman let alone lie- or at least mislead a jury on the witness stand.
Shortly after the March 2021 raid we communicated a number of times and I said to her there were two things I thought she should do in regard to her situation. One was not lie even if it was to Ian’s detriment. Ian Freeman could take care of himself I said, and two, don’t do anything to incriminate yourself or even remotely appear to be partaking in any activity that might be perceived as not-kosher.
Alas- she seems to have at least broken one of these pieces of advice. Why? Over a stupid squabble? Some insignificant issue she perceived to exist? Well, unfortunately yes. There was a question as to whether or not a mistake was made in certifying Ian’s assets vs the Shire Free Churches assets and what was little more than a minor oversight she turned into a flaming drama fest on the stand. As a bookkeeper she certified Ian as having ~3 million dollars in assets of one kind or another.
Not everyone whose taken the stand to testify for the prosecution has done everything perfectly. Being questioned by a prosecutor or lawyer can be quite nerve wracking after all! One witness who should have been favorable to the defense (though forced to testify against Ian Freeman) let (however unintentionally) the prosecutor lead her to a mistaken answer. That was correctly fixed by the defense re-asking the question differently. No hard feelings. It happens. The damage could be huge, but the defense fixed it. We’re all human.
This? This is going to take a lot more time to heal. That said Ian Freeman’s got one of the biggest hearts and I bet he’d even forgive you despite this attack. Maybe there is more to the story I’m not seeing still. Maybe this was the plan all along. I’m going to hope it really was just a squabble over some irrelevant detail, because the alternative is you are the biggest piece of shit Melanie. If you were working for the feds all along you are lower than low and I will NEVER forgive you. Feds don’t deserve forgiveness. Anyone else… even the most depraved human beings I can forgive, but NOT people who create a living out of others misery.
I’ll end on a positive note. The Crypto6 protest went great! ~16 people came out to the trial today and ~50 turned up to our little protest outside the federal courthouse in Concord. The video(s) I recorded are below.
https://www.freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/dec-12-2022-protest-crypto6-federal-courthouse-concord/part1-dec-12-22-protest-concord-federal-court-crypto6.mp4
http://freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/dec-12-2022-protest-crypto6-federal-courthouse-concord/part2-dec-12-22-protest-concord-federal-court-crypto6.mp4
Liberty continues to live and grow in New Hampshire. We had 97 NHLA Endorsed Representatives and Senators elected!
We supported 158 candidates in the primary and general election and must replenish funds to be able to support liberty candidates in special elections. We are holding a PAC fundraising event at Vine 32 in Bedford on Monday, November 28th. If you can attend, we’d love to see you at the event. Please buy your ticket (which acts as a contribution to our PAC). If you can’t attend but have the means to help us prepare for what are sure to be challenging special elections in 2023, please consider donating to the PAC.
The post Running on Empty! PAC Fundraiser appeared first on NH Liberty Alliance.
Pro-Independence Rep Matt Santonastaso RE-ELECTED!
Earlier this year, the historic NH Independence constitutional amendment, CACR 32, was voted on in the state house. Thirteen brave state representatives stood in favor of allowing the people of NH to vote on declaring peaceful independence from the United States, which is all the bill would have done – simply let the people vote.
New Hampshire gets a lot of credit for having a thriving liberty activism migration here and many elected libertarians serving in the legislature as the “Freedom Caucus”. So, why did so many freedom-oriented state reps hide in the shadows on the CACR 32 vote? They privately would support independence, but these reps were too cowardly to show their true colors. A major objection from them was that secession isn’t popular, but the scientific polling done by the Foundation for NH Independence over the summer blew that fear out of the water, showing that nearly one-in-three Granite Staters and over 50% of NH republicans already support New Hampshire being an independent nation.
The other major objection from the reps who otherwise should have supported this issue was fear of not getting re-elected. Now we have the indisputable proof that this fear was also unfounded. Though it’s true that most of the NH population isn’t ready to secede, that doesn’t mean they don’t support putting it to a vote. According to the FNHI polling, 42% support putting the question of NH independence to voters, with 12% unsure. Still, most politicians aren’t known for their leadership and courage, so now they can look at the brave thirteen state reps who were willing to take the arrows from the loyalists to the Empire. Let’s take a look at what happened with those thirteen reps, and why it’s a success story for the NH Exit movement.
Of the thirteen reps who heroically voted in favor of CACR 32, several decided not to run again: Mark Warden, Raymond Howard, Dennis Green, Dustin Dodge, and Alan Bershstein. Of the eight running for re-election, three didn’t make it through the primary: The Seacoast’s Max Abramson who barely got defeated by 54 votes, or just over 1%. There’s no indication that his support of independence played a role in his narrow defeat. In the Lakes Region, longtime reps Glen Aldrich and CACR 32’s main sponsor Mike Sylvia lost handily to their republican opponents. However, Sylvia himself and other election observers attributed their losses to the Gunstock Mountain situation where they were targeted politically from the left and right for trying to de-fund and probably ultimately sell the state-owned ski area. That left five of the eight pro-independence reps who were seeking re-election, advancing to the primary.
All five were successfully re-elected! The big race to watch was Rindge state rep Matt Santonastaso. Santonastaso was a key leader with CACR 32 and was targeted heavily by the democrats for his support of NH independence. He doesn’t just want people to be able to vote on it, he’s a strong advocate for New Hampshire’s peaceful divorce from the United States. Every newspaper article I saw about him labeled him as a secessionist, even in the headlines. He won re-election, along with reps Glenn Bailey, Diane Kelley, Paul Terry, and Josh Yokela. Plus they gained at least one newly elected first-time representative, Jason Gerhard, who was endorsed by the newly-formed NH Independence PAC.
Empire Loyalist Brodie Deshaies, was DEFEATED in the primary!
The NHIPAC will surely be reaching out to the other new and returning liberty-oriented state reps – of which there were a record number elected this year, including a record 50 free staters – to see who is willing to go on the record in favor of freedom from the United States.The state reps who had excuses before will probably still have excuses the next time legislation like CACR 32 comes up, but now they can’t claim they won’t win re-election or that no one supports independence, because those are simply fear-based and not the reality on-the-ground in New Hampshire. The popularity of peaceful secession is only going to increase as the federal government continues to ratchet up the tyranny no mater which political party is running it.
What’s next for NH independence? The newly elected and re-elected state reps have a couple of weeks to file legislation for the upcoming 2023 session that kicks off this winter. What secession-related bills will be filed this time? Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for the latest, and don’t forget to sign the petition if you haven’t yet.
P.S. Goodbye to the federal government’s loyalist rep, Brodie Deshaies – the young pro-tyranny state rep from Wolfeboro who was the key spokesman against CACR 32 in the state house. Deshaies didn’t make it through the primary! Of course a new loyalist to the Empire will rise to take his place the next time the state house debates NH independence, but the loyalists never have any argument except appeals to violence and “authority”.
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:
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:
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.
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!
A recent poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence (FNHI) shows that while the peaceful separation of New Hampshire from the federal government has low support among politicians, it has significant support among registered voters.
According to an overwhelming number of respondents, the people of the United States are getting more and more divided over important issues like LGBT rights, guns, abortion, election integrity, race relations, involvement in foreign wars, climate change, immigration, and so on (91%). Nearly as many fear that if this trend continues, it will lead to increases in political violence (89%).
Large majorities of respondents agreed that the federal government doesn’t have their best interests in mind (67%); that it violates their rights more than it protects those rights (65%); that it produces laws, regulations, and court rulings that are incompatible with New Hampshire’s culture of freedom (63%); and that its financial decisions and economic regulations hurt our livelihoods, and could lead to inflation and bankruptcy (77%).
In short, 63% of respondents feel that their state can be trusted more than the federal government.
One possible way forward would be for New Hampshire to begin ignoring federal laws and regulations regarding matters reserved to the States by the 10th Amendment. Fewer than half of respondents believe that the federal government should be able to force New Hampshire to follow federal mandates and laws regarding cannabis (27%), medicine (37%), public health (42%), education (41%), welfare (42%, firearms (42%), businesses (38%), and abortion (33%).
This approach, also referred to as ‘nullification’ is common, currently being utilized by dozens of states, and is consistent with the recent enactment of New Hampshire HB 1178, ‘prohibiting the state from enforcing any federal statute, regulation, or Presidential Executive Order that restricts or regulates the right of the people to keep and bear arms’.
However, a more comprehensive way forward would be for New Hampshire to reclaim its sovereignty, peacefully separating from the federal government to govern itself as an independent country, an idea that was supported by 29% of respondents and 52% of Republicans. Only 58% of respondents do not support immediate and full secession from the federal government today. More than 2/5 of respondents agreed that the state should be able to do this without securing permission from the federal government (43%). And only 3% of respondents would support the use of military force by the federal government to interfere with such a separation.
Again, while politicians declined to put the question to the people, more than 2/5 of respondents support the idea of placing independence on the ballot (42%) while only 47% currently oppose it.
History is filled with proposals that seemed at first to be politically impossible, but after serious discussion and evolving circumstances, proved to be politically inevitable. To take just one example, shall-issue laws for concealed carry licenses, once viewed as extreme, are now the law in nearly every state. As the results of this poll show, peaceful separation already has more support now than shall-issue laws had in 1990. Today, not only is shall-issue the norm, but 25 states allow their residents to carry concealed guns without even requiring a permit. If New Hampshire independence follows a similar path, it may only be a few short years away from broad adoption.
The survey also found strong support for independence and extreme discontent with DC politicians among all 8 states polled. In Texas, 90% of Republicans recently endorsed putting secession on the ballot, officially placing the position in their platform. California progressives have a strong independence movement of their own, and surveys show that around half of Californians support or are open to independence from the union. Progressives in Hawaii, Oregon, and Washington also support independence. States like South Carolina, Florida, and many other states have new independence movements that are rapidly growing, as well.
The post New Hampshire Survey Shows Disdain For DC, Support For Independence appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.
The #1 thing that state reps said they wanted to hear before they’d vote yes on independence was that their constituents actually wanted independence. We know that the people of New Hampshire want independence thanks to a Union Leader poll that evidenced 70-78% of New Hampshire voters supported the idea. However that isn’t good enough for many state reps so now we have to go a step further. We created bumper stickers & t-shirts to ensure that on the next go around they can’t so easily excuse away not voting yes on independence! Pick up a NHexit.US bumper sticker and/or t-shirt and let everyone know how you feel about New Hampshire independence.
This year’s sold-out Liberty Forum featured an excellent and well-attended panel on New Hampshire secession featuring Alu Axelman of the Foundation for New Hampshire Independence, Steven Axelman of YES California, and Daniel Miller of the Texas Nationalist Movement. Moderated by Carla Gericke of the Free State Project, it was an entertaining and enlightening panel, featuring plenty of questions from the audience. Don’t miss it:
State Rep Mike Sylvia Committing Civil Disobedience in 2014
State representative Mike Sylvia of Belmont – the main sponsor of CACR 32, the historic NH Exit constitutional amendment – has spoken out via his blog on the subject of New Hampshire Independence. Written just days prior to the full house vote, Sylvia’s excellent piece is titled, “Sovereign State Or Branch Office of D.C. Inc.” In it, he demolishes the arguments against secession. You can read it here on his blog, but I have also pasted the text below to ensure it is not taken down if his site goes away at some point:
Sovereign State Or Branch Office of D.C. Inc.In 1784 the people of New Hampshire formed a government, founded upon the sovereignty of the people. The people shared with that government a limited portion of their own sovereignty which was detailed in Part II of the New Hampshire constitution. Notably, the people retained to themselves rights which could not be infringed upon nor delegated to others. This is known as our New Hampshire Bill of Rights which make up Part I of our constitution.
The people of New Hampshire declared our State to be forever a sovereign state.
[Art.] 7. [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.
In 1787 the Constitution for the United States was created. In 1791 the Bill of Rights was amended to the constitution. This included the 9th amendment;
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
And the 10th;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Note how well those amendments fit with the preexisting NH Constitution Part I, Article 7, [State Sovereignty.] The people of this state have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free, sovereign, and independent state; and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right, pertaining thereto, which is not, or may not hereafter be, by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled.
In the majority report recommending that CACR32 be inexpedient to legislate three ill-conceived reasons are relied upon.
First, “Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede.” If one reads and understands the 10th amendment to the US Constitution, one can clearly see that lacking the explicit delegation of the power to prevent secession means that secession is retained to the states or the people. The majority report is self-defeating and lacks any logic.
Second, the majority claims that the ‘perpetual union’ was then ‘perfected’ under the US Constitution therefore it must continue for eternity. An honest look at the historical facts will reveal that we no longer hold to the Articles of Confederation; clearly that union was not perpetual. In fact, one can consider the formation of a new government under the US Constitution to have been an act of revolution.
Lastly, the Civil War settled the question. This argument is the very simple and brutal ‘might makes right.’ This is a bit odd when balanced with the concept of a contract between states. If force is that which holds the union together then there is no state sovereignty. If sovereignty is held by D.C. Inc. one might be forced to consider whence that sovereignty came.
It is quite sad but predictable that a committee named State Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs would be so subservient to the powers of the National government which regards its founding document with such little concern.
With such weak arguements against the proposed amendment to our constitution, the author of the majority report felt the need to move beyond reporting on the bill into the realm of questioning the character of the sponsors. He demands that D.C. Inc. punish those whom question authoritarian rule from the swamp. He even goes as far as threatening those whom might dare to vote for such a proposal.
Still straying from the content of the amendment the writer implies that the General Court should punish those whom follow the State constitution and view the State as the sovereign state that it is.
Insecure in his failed reasoning, he resorts to threatening charges of rebellion for those whom might dare vote to send a constitutional amendment to the people of the state. He further implies that the NH House remove voting rights for presumed rebellion.
REBELLION: Deliberate, organized resistance, by force and arms, to the laws or operations of the government, committed by a subject.
I’m almost disappointed that he didn’t whip out the big one:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Let me end with one more jewel from our Bill of Rights:
[Art.] 30. [Freedom of Speech.] The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any action, complaint, or prosecution, in any other court or place whatsoever.
The authors of our founding documents knew tyranny all too well, if we open our eyes today, we can see it coming back around.
Open your eyes.
(The “Majority Report” from committee member Brodie Deshaies appears below:)
CACR 32, relating to independence. Providing that the state peaceably declares independence from the United States and proceeds as a sovereign nation. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Brodie Deshaies for State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs. The committee believes that articles of secession are unconstitutional and therefore impossible. Any attempt to make NH a “sovereign nation” only purports to do so and is illegitimate. There are three main arguments the committee heard. The first legal argument why states cannot secede from the union is reasonably understandable. The federal government is the only legitimate power to admit new states and to extend or retract territorial boundaries. Nowhere in our US Constitution does it allow the federal government to permit any state to secede, let alone for any state to decide unilaterally. Our constitution is quite clear on this issue (see Article IV, Section 3). No state constitution has ever suggested that states hold this power. Constitutions are implicit contracts with citizens that grant governments specific powers. With no power explicitly given allowing secession, no state can ever secede. Another argument lies in the US Supreme Court decision in Texas v. White (1869). In the court’s majority decision, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase explained that the union began during the Revolutionary War amongst the colonies. In his decision, he writes, the union “was confirmed and strengthened… and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation… [and] by these, the Union was solemnly declared to be perpetual.” Justice Chase then says that our current Constitution was “ordained to form a more perfect Union,” which intended to convey the idea of indissoluble unity….” Therefore, the union can never be dissolved. Our form of government and Constitution is predicated upon the union’s “perpetual” existence. Without this “perpetual” existence, we would be throwing away the union, and with it, the US Constitution. The last constitutional argument is straightforward. It does not matter whether or not secession is illegal. What matters is that the union beat the confederacy in the Civil War. Once this happened, the illegality of unilateral secession was de facto established. The legality of secession was answered at Appomattox Court House in 1865 with the conclusion of the Civil War. It also means the repercussions for attempting unilateral secession have been decided too. The federal government must punish states and their leaders who try to secede. Which leads us to another question: can state leaders introduce or vote for articles of secession? This is currently an open question and the NH General Court would decide the answer. Nonetheless, the 14th Amendment, Article III, is very clear: “No State Legislator shall engage in rebellion against the Constitution.” Voting for NH’s proposed articles of secession could be determined by the NH House as rebellion against the US Constitution. It could be casting a vote to rebel against the union and, therefore, the same constitution establishing the perpetual union. Voting for CACR32 is not voting for a referendum. NH does not have referendum. We encourage fellow lawmakers to reject NH’s articles of secession and protect constitutional government. Not only is CACR32 logistically and constitutionally impossible, but NH’s articles of secession may require enforcement of the 14th Amendment by the NH House.
It was a historic day as New Hampshire was the first state since the “Civil War” to have a house floor discussion about secession. As reported on this blog previously, CACR 32 – the constitutional amendment that would have allowed NH voters to decide the question of declaring peaceful independence from the United States – was voted down 323-13 on Thursday. Now you can watch video of the full discussion from the floor of Rep’s Hall:
Don’t miss this post at Free Keene which gathers together seventeen hysterical posts from SHOCKED democrats in response to the heroic thirteen state reps who voted to try to stop CACR 32 from being killed.
We’re just getting started promoting independence for New Hampshire. CACR 32 was just the beginning to get the conversation going. Stay tuned here to NHexit.US for more. Meanwhile, be sure to sign the petition and join the community via the links in the top menu and help us do even more!
Cowardly State Reps Return to Reps Hall
Today was the big day, the first time ever that a bill relating to New Hampshire independence was heard by the full state house. With over 330 of 400 reps in attendance, the historic proposed constitutional amendment was sadly shot down 323-13. We didn’t expect to win the first time out, of course. The point of CACR 32 was to get the conversation started.
No thanks however to multiple so-called “liberty reps” who put fear-based political concerns over principle and refused to back up the brave reps who sponsored this bill. I was there greeting the reps this morning as they entered Reps’ Hall and I heard various excuses. Free Stater rep Jess Edwards said it shouldn’t go to voters unless reps support the idea, and he doesn’t. This is literally the same thing some of the democrats told me as they were entering the chamber, expressing that they were against democracy as they see themselves as “gatekeepers”. One Democrat, rep Tim Egan, even admitted in an email to me, “legislators can absolutely not trust voters with this decision”. The state reps don’t trust you to decide, whether they be Republican or Democrat.
Representative Tom Ploszaj used the excuse that no one from his constituency had reached out to him in support of CACR 32. Of course the bill got very little attention in the media, so it’s likely few people were even aware of it. Ploszaj and other “liberty reps” seem very concerned with what voters would think if they voted in support of CACR 32. Ploszaj said in an email, “My personal opinion and stance on the CACR is irreverent [SIC] since I was elected to represent my district and uphold the Constitutions not to make decisions based on my own agendas.” This is a strange statement as we all know that no one can truly “represent” a diverse group of people. If Ploszaj ran a campaign and was honest about supporting liberty, then that is presumably why he was elected, not to do anything a handful of people who call him up suggest. If a few people called Ploszaj to request he sponsor some Communist legislation, I suspect he would say no, even though some constituents wanted it.
Jason Osborne, Free Stater and the current House Majority Leader said that he supports California seceding, but doesn’t think the people of New Hampshire want independence. He told me instead NH should lead the way for America. Another Free Stater, five-term rep Brian Seaworth expressed that he didn’t want to support the bill because he didn’t think it would pass and he felt that voting for it would put him in jeopardy of losing the next election. Melissa Blasek, state rep and executive director of Rebuild NH said that while she likes the idea, she’s worried the democrats will use it against her in her reelection campaign.
I guess we’ll see if the thirteen heroes who voted for this bill will be defeated in their re-election attempts later this year. What if they are re-elected? Will the “liberty reps” who refused to stand on principle develop a spine? Don’t get your hopes up.
Perhaps they’ll be prosecuted for treason or rebellion as statist rep Brodie Deshaies suggested in his attempts to intimidate the reps into opposing CACR 32. I’d bet against any reps being prosecuted. Despite the claims to the contrary, this was an attempt at peaceful secession. No violence was ever suggested. Secession is legal and constitutional, as rep Matt Santonastaso explained in his speech on the house floor today. Article one, section ten of the US Constitution outlines the specific things that states are not allowed to do. Leaving is not one of those prohibited things. In fact, secession isn’t talked about at all in the US Constitution. Therefore, it’s a right left to the states under the tenth amendment of the Bill of Rights. We CAN do this. Some state is going to be first to go. Whether it’s Texas, California, New Hampshire, or elsewhere, the only question is when.
NHexit.US
The next big step for the NH Exit constitutional amendment, CACR 32, is this Thursday March 10th, when it will come to the full state house for a vote. Supporters of New Hampshire independence should immediately call or email their state representatives and ask them to support CACR 32. Please remind them that voting on CACR 32 is NOT a vote on state secession. Their vote is on whether or not to put the question on the ballot for the people to decide.
Many reps are confused and believe that if they vote to pass CACR 32 that they are supporting independence for NH and that is not true. Voting to kill CACR 32 means they are anti-democratic and do not want to allow the people of New Hampshire to vote on the matter. Please be kind to the confused reps and try to help them understand rather than getting upset.
Here’s a handy tool you can use to discover your local state reps and get their contact information. While you can contact more than just your area’s reps, reps outside your area may not consider your comments as seriously as your local reps. So, if your time is limited, keep your state rep outreach to your area’s reps only.
Second, if you have free time this Thursday March 10th, please show up at the state house in Concord at 107 N Main St for their full house session where CACR 32 will be heard. We do not know the exact time CACR 32 will come up, but it is expected to happen at some point. The session begins at 9am but some NH Independence activists will be arriving much earlier, some as early as 7:30am, for a rally outside the state house. Feel free to bring signs or shirts promoting independence for New Hampshire. Be sure to also connect with our chat rooms on Matrix or Telegram to help coordinate. Both chat rooms are linked together, so if you join one, you needn’t join the other.
Earlier this winter, the committee hearing the bill voted it “Inexpedient to Legislate” 21-0, however there are 400 state reps in New Hampshire and because it’s a constitutional amendment any vote of the full house must be a “roll call” vote. Roll call means that each representative’s vote is recorded so we know how each state rep voted. We need to be present on Thursday to show them there is support for CACR 32 and that we are watching to see how they vote. See you Thursday morning at the state house in Concord!
Over the past few weeks, a group of pro-freedom activists in New Hampshire has been holding informal meetings to brainstorm how to best promote independence in the next legislative session. Predictably, progressive authoritarians have already begun to attack the concepts of independence and liberty. A few conservatives cling to hope that they can fix DC and all 50 states, convince all Democrats to embrace conservative liberty values, and ‘save America’.
I have written dozens of articles, published three books, and produced hundreds of videos making the case for a national divorce from the authoritarians. Here are just 100 reasons why every New Hampshire citizen who supports freedom should support a bill and a ballot referendum on independence from DC.
The post Top 100 Reasons New Hampshire Should Be Independent appeared first on Foundation for New Hampshire Independence.