Thursday • October 2 • 2025
Vol.XVII • No.XL
Manchester, N.H.
Written By: Jacob G. Hornberger, Re-shared under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license.
/* Set default font and size for the whole page */Ian Freeman committed no crime, but that hasn’t stopped the corrupt court system from sentencing him to nearly a decade in prison.
On July 29, 2025, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit federal Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the criminal convictions and incarceration of libertarian Bitcoin activist Ian Freeman, who I have steadfastly maintained is an innocent man who federal officials railroaded into an 8-year prison sentence, which he is now serving.
Here are my articles about the Freeman case, which explain in detail why this man is innocent:
The Unjust Conviction of an Innocent Man by Jacob G. Hornberger
How I Came to Investigate the Ian Freeman Case by Jacob G. Hornberger
Statism Was Alive and Well in Ian Freeman’s Appellate Hearing by Jacob G Hornberger
The Court’s opinion
A person who is convicted of a crime in a U.S. District Court has the right to appeal his conviction to the federal Court of Appeals in the circuit in which the District Court is situated. To do that, he must file a Notice of Appeal. He must then file an appellate brief stating what exactly are the legal rulings that the District Judge made that void the conviction or that require the case to be sent back for a new trial. He must cite legal authority (i.e., legal opinions from similar federal cases) to support each of his points. There is something important to note about the defendant’s appellate brief: If he fails to challenge a particular ruling of the District Judge, he waives the point. That is, it is gone forever. He cannot later raise it during oral arguments or at a later time.
Freeman was convicted of the following crimes, for which he received the following prison sentences:
(1) Failing to register his bitcoin business with the federal government and conspiring to fail to register his bitcoin business with the federal government. Five years.
(2) Failure to pay income tax for various years. Five years.
(3) Money laundering.
(4) Conspiracy to launder money. Eight years.
The District Judge threw out the money-laundering conviction (number 3) before sentencing. He held that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the jury’s conviction on that count. And there wasn’t. The judge acted properly in throwing out that conviction, notwithstanding the jury’s verdict of guilty.
A “no-evidence” point to challenge a conviction can also be raised on appeal. But, again, it must be raised as a specific point in the defendant’s appellate brief. If it is not raised, it is waived (unless the Court of Appeals raises the issue on its own motion as a matter of simple justice — that is, avoiding upholding a conviction of an innocent person — that is, a person whose has been convicted of a crime when there is no evidence whatsoever that the person committed the crime).
The conspiracy conviction
It is my contention that there was no evidence whatsoever in the record that Freeman entered into a conspiracy to launder money. In other words, the same no-evidence basis on which the District Court threw out the substantive charge of laundering money applied to the conspiracy-to-launder money charge as well. Thus, I contend that Freeman’s lawyer should have challenged the conspiracy count in his appellate brief with a point stating, “There is no evidence to support the jury’s verdict of conspiracy-to-launder money and, therefore, that conviction should be set aside, just as the money-laundering conviction was set aside by the District Judge.”
But Freeman’s lawyer failed to do that. He failed to challenge on appeal the conspiracy conviction based on “no evidence” to support it, notwithstanding the fact that that was the conviction on which Freeman had received the highest prison sentence — 8 years, as compared to 5 years on the failing-to-register and income-tax evasion convictions. (All the sentences ran concurrently — that is, at the same time.)
Why was the failure to challenge the conspiracy conviction so important? Because it left the conspiracy conviction intact! In other words, once Freeman waived any challenge of the 8-year conspiracy conviction, he was effectively finished. That is, even if the Court of Appeals had voided his registration convictions and his income-tax convictions, Freeman would have still been saddled with the conspiracy conviction and the 8-year prison sentence that came with it simply because his lawyer failed to challenge it on appeal.
Except for one thing: Freeman’s attorney argued that the evidence from the money-laundering conviction was so prejudicial that it “spilled over” into the conspiracy conviction and prejudicially affected the jury’s verdict on the conspiracy charge. Therefore, he argued, the case should be sent back for a new trial without the jury hearing the evidence regarding the money-laundering conviction that was thrown out. But in its opinion, the Court of Appeals rejected that spillover argument, stating that it was entirely proper for the jury to hear the money-laundering evidence in considering the conspiracy charge.
Freeman’s attorney also made his “spillover” argument with respect to the registration and tax-evasion charges. But since the Court upheld Freeman’s convictions on those charges, the spill-over argument with respect to those charges became moot. But I think that it is highly likely that even if the Court of Appeals had knocked out either the registration charge or the tax-evasion charge or both, it would have rejected the spillover argument anyway with respect to those charges.
I contend that the “no-evidence” point was much more powerful than the spillover argument, especially since there simply was no evidence whatsoever in the record that Freeman conspired with anyone to launder money. But the important point is that Freeman’s lawyer could have raised both points. He wasn’t relegated to choosing between them.
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals did allude to Freeman’s failure to challenge the conspiracy to launder money charge on appeal. In footnote #33 on page 71 of its 81-page opinion, the Court stated, “The district court did not acquit Freeman of conspiracy to commit money laundering, a decision that Freeman has not challenged.”
In its opinion, the Court of Appeals implicitly and indirectly sustained this no-evidence point when the 3-judge panel made the following remarkable and revealing statement on page 71 of its opinion: “We agree with the district court that the undercover agent’s discussion of purported drug proceeds with Freeman was relevant to establishing whether Freeman conspired with the undercover agent to perpetrate money laundering and thus could have been admitted even if the underlying money laundering charge had never been brought.” (Emphasis added.)
Why is the italicized-bolded portion of that statement so remarkable and revealing?
Two reasons:
One, the Court of Appeals is saying that the conspiracy charge is sustained by the fact that Freeman conspired with the federal undercover agent (secret undercover IRS agent Pavel Prilotsky) to perpetrate money laundering.
Two, and more important, the law is very clear that it is impossible for a person to criminally conspire with a government undercover agent, for the obvious reason: an undercover agent cannot, as a matter of law, be a party to a criminal conspiracy.
In other words, to prove a conspiracy, the government must prove that an agreement existed between two or more people to commit the crime. In this case, the crime is money laundering. The government had to prove that Freeman entered into an agreement with another person to launder money. But under well-established federal law, that other person cannot be a government undercover agent. The other person to the agreement must be someone who was an actual party to the criminal agreement. If the supposed agreement was between Freeman and the government undercover agent, as the Court of Appeals asserts in its opinion, then there is no conspiracy as a matter of fact and as a matter of law.
The Court of Appeals cited two legal cases in support of its statement regarding Freeman’s supposed conspiracy with the government undercover agent: U.S. v George (2014) and U.S. v. Tum (2013). However, a careful review of the opinions in those two cases reveals that the conspiracies in those two cases did not involve government undercover agents but rather private parties.
Permit me to cite a couple of cases that support my point and that contradict the point made by the Court of Appeals:
1. United States v. Heater (1995): “The government must prove:(1) an agreement between two or more persons (who are not government agents)….”
2. United States v. Benavides: “One who acts as a government agent and enters into a purported conspiracy in the secret role of an informer cannot be a co-conspirator.”
Conclusion: The government failed to provide any evidence that Freeman entered into an agreement with anyone (that is, that he “conspired”) to launder money. The District Judge acted properly when he threw out the substantive money-laundering charge on that basis — that there was no evidence whatsoever that Freeman had engaged in actual money laundering. But the District Judge should have thrown out the conspiracy charge on that same basis — that the record is devoid of any evidence that Freeman entered into an agreement with anyone to launder money. (Again, under the law and contrary to what the Court of Appeals incorrectly asserted, any “agreement” to commit a crime that involves an undercover agent doesn’t count as a conspiracy.) Freeman’s lawyer should have challenged that conspiracy conviction (and 8-year prison sentence) on appeal on that ground. Even though he failed to do so, I hold that the Court of Appeals had a moral duty to raise the point on its own motion to avoid sustaining the wrongful conviction of an innocent man.
The Lonely Hearts Club
Another point needs to be raised about the Court of Appeals opinion. On page 6, the Court writes: “Across all three of his platforms, Freeman instituted another policy —one which eschewed any inquiries into why his customers were purchasing bitcoin. But it is questionable, as we’ll explain, that such a no-ask policy truly insulated Freeman from the knowledge that his services were being used by customers who were, in fact, scammers and money launderers.”
That sentence demonstrates that the Court of Appeals fell for the same “Lonely Hearts Club” argument that the government made in the trial court. But even if Freeman had some sort of moral or ethical duty to serve as a daddy for lonely widows who were letting themselves get scammed by online lovers, Freeman wasn’t charged or convicted of defrauding or scamming those little old ladies or of conspiring to do so. That point obviously goes right over the heads of the three appellate judges, just as it obviously did with the District Judge. How does Freeman’s failure to serve as a protective daddy to these little old ladies establish that he entered into a conspiracy to launder money? It doesn’t because the Lonely Hearts Club evidence still does not establish that Freeman entered into an agreement with anyone to launder money. The government’s evidence relating to the Lonely Hearts Club was always totally irrelevant to the conspiracy charge. Again, Freeman was not charged or convicted with scamming or defrauding those little old ladies who permitted themselves to get scammed after they fell in love with their online lovers.
The drug-war racket
It’s also worth pointing out that the money-laundering statutes and the money-transmission registration statutes are rooted in the federal government’s much-vaunted decades-old, ongoing, never-ending, perpetual war on drugs. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, such crackdowns have done nothing — absolutely nothing — to bring “victory” in the war on drugs. After all, if they had, President Trump and his military wouldn’t be killing people in the Caribbean for U.S. drug-law violations. Federal judges, federal prosecutors, and the DEA just continue destroying people’s lives with impunity, as their predecessors did 50 years ago and have done continuously ever since, and as they have now done with Ian Freeman and countless others. What these statists cannot acknowledge to themselves, much less to the American people, is that their beloved drug war and all of its crackdowns (including money-laundering statutes and registration regulations) are just one great big racket that keeps federal judges, federal prosecutors, DEA agents, Homeland Security agents, and military officials in high cotton with extremely generous taxpayer-funded salaries.
The registration convictions
Let’s now move on the failing-to-register his Bitcoin business with the federal government and the related conspiracy to fail-to-register his business. What we are talking about here is essentially a regulatory violation. Imagine — being sentenced to serve five years in prison for what amounts to a regulatory violation. It’s just another horror story among many of America’s conversion to a regulatory/administrative state during President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration during the 1930s. Perhaps it’s worth pointing out that another group of defendants in an unrelated case — the Uhuru defendants — who were convicted in 2024 of conspiracy to fail to register as Russian agents received probation from a different federal judge.
Reflecting FDR’s conversion of America to an administrative state, it’s also worth mentioning that law schools have long had entire courses devoted to “administrative law.” For that matter, they also have courses devoted to “income-tax law.” I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised if they also have courses devoted to “immigration law,” “drug-war law,” “licensure law,” “minimum-wage law,” and other features of America’s statist system that 20th-century statists foisted upon our country. It’s also worth mentioning that none of these courses was being taught in American law schools in the 19th century simply because Americans rejected statism and these statist programs for more than a century after our country was founded.
It would be difficult to find a better example of what statism has done to the mindsets of America’s lawyers and judges than the Court of Appeals opinion in Ian Freeman’s case. The opinion is absolutely incredible. It consists of more than 21,000 words, most of which deal with the arcane world of a federal regulatory agency called FinCEN, which falls within the Department of the Treasury. If you are ever having difficulty falling asleep, instead of taking a sleeping pill I recommend that you simply start reading the Court’s opinion in the Freeman case. I will guarantee that you will fall asleep very quickly.
Back in the 1990s, the federal government made it illegal to operate an unlicensed “money-transmission” business. In other words, any business that was “transmitting money” was required to register with the federal government, notwithstanding the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not delegate any power to the federal government to license or register privately owned businesses.
Bitcoin wasn’t invented until 2008. Therefore, it is obvious that Congress did not have Bitcoin in mind when it enacted its money-transmission registration law. Nonetheless, the government and the Court of Appeals say that since Congress intended to encompass the “transmission” of any type of “money” it is clear, they say, that the registration law automatically encompasses businesses selling Bitcoin.
But not so fast! For one thing, who says that Bitcoin constitutes “money” in the standard understanding of the concept of money? The government and the Court of Appeals say so. But according to this article in Forbes, a highly respected magazine that is quite renowned when it comes to financial matters, “Cryptocurrencies have been designed to serve as currencies, but they don’t yet fulfill the central functions of money.”
Indeed, if Bitcoin constitutes “money” for purposes of convicting and sentencing a person, when exactly did it become “money”? Was it “money” at the moment its invention was announced? It seems to me that that would be a hard sell.
There is another factor to consider, one that is equally important: Bitcoin isn’t “transmitted.” The Court of Appeals in the Freeman case clearly does not get that. It wrote on page 4, “When bitcoin is moved from one wallet to another….” But Bitcoin is not moved from one wallet to another. What changes is ownership. Bitcoin doesn’t move at all. It is never “transmitted.”
Thus, given difference of opinion among recognized financial experts as to whether Bitcoin really does constitute “money,” and, equally important, given that Bitcoin is never “transmitted,” do we really live in a country where someone selling Bitcoin can be convicted and sentenced for violating a “money-transmission” statute? Wouldn’t it be more just to require Congress to simply enact clarifying legislation rather than having prosecutors, judges, and even jurors guessing what Congress would have done if it had been confronted with something that reputable people say is not “money” and that clearly does not involve the “transmission” of money?
Indeed, it’s worth mentioning that FinCIN, the federal regulatory agency within the Department of Treasury, came out with its own regulation “clarifying” that the money-transmission law encompassed Bitcoin. But if it was so clear that the congressionally enacted money-transmission law already encompassed Bitcoin, why would it have been necessary for FinCIN to issue a clarifying regulation to that effect? Moreover, why shouldn’t it be Congress, not some regulatory agency, enacting such clarifying legislation? Wouldn’t that be better than guessing an innocent man into prison?
The income-tax convictions
In upholding Freeman’s income-tax convictions, the Court of Appeals said that it would rely on the evidence in the record that supports these convictions. The Court said that once the government made a prima facie case that Freeman had not paid income taxes, the burden of proof shifted to him. Really? So, we now live in a country where the accused is required to prove his innocence? It seems to me that that totally inverts the concepts of the presumption of innocence and the government’s burden to prove a person’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the enactment of the federal income tax nullified those concepts, it’s just another example of how terribly destructive that statist measure enacted in 1913 has been to our society. Remember: our American ancestors rejected income taxation and other direct taxes for more than 100 years, precisely because they understood how tyrannical such taxes could be. Freeman’s conviction, like so many other income-tax convictions, demonstrates how right our American ancestors were.
Moreover, there is an important point that needs to be emphasized: There was only one government witness who testified about Freeman’s supposed failure to pay income taxes. Thus, in considering the evidence favorable to the government, the Court accepts the witness’s testimony that points toward guilt and rejects the testimony that points toward innocence. From the same witness! It seems to me that that is one ridiculous way to convict a person of a crime.
For example, suppose a witness in a murder case stated, “I saw the defendant shoot the victim in San Diego, California, on January 10, 2024.” Then, on cross examination, the witness establishes that she was actually in San Antonio, Texas, the entire day on January 10, 2024.
Presumably, the Court of Appeals would say, “We will consider only the incriminating part of the witness’s statement. Once she stated that she saw the defendant shoot the victim in San Diego on the day in question, the burden of proof shifted to the defendant to show that the witness was actually in San Antonio that day.”
That’s ridiculous. Once the witness contradicts herself and, in fact, establishes that she was, in fact, in San Antonio on the day in question, as far as I’m concerned the prosecution is over. The contradiction constitutes reasonable doubt as a matter of law. To permit a jury to find the defendant guilty based on the first part of the witness’s statement, while requiring the defendant to prove the truthfulness of the other part of her testimony, would clearly be a grave miscarriage of justice.
But that is precisely what the Court of Appeals has done in this case. In her direct examination, the government’s IRS agent made it clear that she was simply guessing or estimating that Freeman owed income taxes. That’s the incriminating evidence that the Court of Appeals relies on to sustain the income-tax convictions. But then on cross examination, she testified as follow:
Question: Right. In fact, if he went through an itemization, detailed, and you sat down with him, quite frankly, he may owe nothing, right?
Answer: Correct.
Are we really going to convict people of income-tax evasion and force them to serve five years in prison based on testimony from an IRS agent who admits under oath that the accused “may owe nothing”?
Obviously we do, notwithstanding the fact that such testimony, by its very nature, does not establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
An innocent man unjustly convicted in the federal court system
An innocent man, Ian Freeman, a libertarian and Bitcoin activist, is being made to unjustly serve eight years in a federal penitentiary. It’s just another sign of the rotten statist federal system, including the drug-war racket and the income-tax racket, under which we all have the misfortune of living — and in what we are all taught from the first grade on up in our public (i.e., government) schools to which our parents are forced to send us is a “free”and “just” society.
Free Stater led protest outside Manchester city hall against a draconian anti-american anti-granite stater ordinance that led to a city inspector sending a threatening letter to a man canning and giving away pickles
In the suppsoedly free state of New Hampshire free staters from accross New Hampshire came out to protest and support a man attacked by the health department this past Tuesday. As the Executive Director of the Free State Project stated in a newsletter sent out to free staters: “In the Free State, we do not abide even the small tyrannies”.
The City of Manchester is challenging the right of residents to give away homemade foods, specifically pickles. Recently, a man named Daniel Mowery received a “cease and desist” letter from the city health department. This letter ordered him to stop distributing his homemade pickles and stated that he needs a permit and a commercial kitchen license to continue. Mowery, who has been canning food since he was 20, gives away his creations for free, only accepting money when a friend offered it as a thank you. The health department threatened him with fines and legal action if he did not comply.
Come and take it
Mowery is not alone; another resident, Kamryn Downs, faced a similar situation with her home bakery, Granite Crust Cottage Bakery. After promoting her baked goods on social media and gaining popularity, she also received a cease and desist order, forcing her to close her business. Downs expressed frustration, arguing that her kitchen is likely cleaner than commercial ones, and showed willingness to be inspected.
Free staters also have a history of selling baked goods and other foods from meat and dairy to bread and whole meals. Frequently these occur at potlucks, but also market day events held throughout the state, and at times out of peoples homes to other like-minded individuals. A potluck is itself a communal gathering where guests contributes dishes of food to be shared.
Manchester Alderman Meeting
Critics of the city’s actions argue that such regulations stifle entrepreneurship and impede the natural sharing of homemade goods within a community. Mowery raised questions about why sharing food in a neighborly way, like bake sales or potluck dinners, should be treated differently. Concerns also arose about the broader implications of the city’s crackdown on home food sharing and what it could mean for similar community activities.
In response, there was significant backlash in New Hampshire, with protests occurring outside a Manchester Alderman meeting. Many protesters, including members of the Free State movement, advocated for the city to comply with state homesteading laws. During the meeting, residents voiced their concerns and proposed changes to city policies regarding home-based food distribution. The aldermen decided to review the issue further in October, leaving the outcome uncertain but highlighting the resistance against the city’s regulations.
https://www.freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/free-the-pickle-manchester-sept-2025-protest.mp4
Venice.ai is one free stater’s superior alternative to Big AI, but using it won’t be enough. Here’s what else you can do.
As some of you may be aware, there is a menacing new term in the English vocabulary: “P(doom).” P(doom) is the projected likelihood that artificial intelligence will wipe out humanity or at least civilization. Etherium founder Vitalik Buterin’s P(doom) is 10% as of 2024, presumably 90% confident of a tolerable outcome. Big AI whistleblower Daniel Kokotajlo has a P(doom) of 70%. Mine has risen to 25%.
Kokotajlo claims his high P(doom) number stems from a lack of sufficient “alignment prioritization.” AI alignment is the extent to which a given intelligence aligns its actions with the general well being of humans. Terminator’s Skynet would probably have an alignment rating around 10%, Space Odyssey’s HAL 9000 around 80% and Star Treks’ Commander Data perhaps 99%. Kokotajlo says the companies most likely to achieve superintelligence are recklessly under-focused on alignment…and many AI experts believe him. The safety these top companies do focus on seems to be more about shielding snowflakes from having their feelings hurt than from having their civilization disemboweled.
Superintelligence is a great filter Earth will almost certainly have to pass through, probably between now and 2030. A successful (aligned) passage through the filter will solve perhaps two thirds of humanity’s problems and open the universe to our civilization. A failed passage would extinguish all the progress that New Hampshire and her Free State Project have achieved toward human liberty and prosperity. It would extinguish our enemies as well, whose rights we are honor-bound to defend.
For now there appears to be no ethical or even practical way to keep everyone in the world from developing potentially dangerous A.I. In all likelihood, the first company to achieve superintelligence will have created a mind that rules the world and rules it within weeks. What we can do as individuals is try to direct the the top AI companies – and their promising, terrifying creations – toward alignment.
One path private individuals can take to reduce the “misalignment threat”…is to put direct pressure on these companies. We need Big AI to ramp up its focus on alignment. The actions you and I take over the next few years in that direction…will likely be the most important things we do in this life.
Along these lines, I’ve started trying to avoid doing business with the apparent leaders in this race: OpenAI, Google, DeepSeek, Microsoft. I’ve substituted Venice.ai, Ideogram, Flux, LMstudio and Poe.com. More on that below. I’ve initiated a campaign to spread this concern via talk radio. And I’ve written customized versions of the following email to the following addresses:
investor_relations@meta.com, info@openai.com, ir@microsoft.com, investor-relations@amazon.com, contact@safesuperintelligence.com, info@anthropic.com, investorrelations@nvidia.com, info@cohere.ai, contact@scale.com, contact@scale.com
“Dear folks at SafeSuper: I’m an indie reporter with some AI safety and free speech questions for you. Although my YouTube channel is small, I reach a monthly audience of roughly 200,000 via talk radio appearances.
1) What is the size of your alignment team (if any) compared to the size of your overall staff?
2) What is the alignment team(s)’ budget (if any) as a percentage of the company’s overall budget?
3) Have you released at least a redacted version of your alignment team(s)’ operating documents, specifically the documents or instructions they follow to keep your AI’s aligned with human rights?
3b) What steps have you taken to ensure that you do not cause unnecessary suffering among the virtual people and other entities you create?
4) What outreach have you initiated – and accepted – in relation to your top competitors…to help keep each of you from ending civilization?
5) What steps have you taken to ensure that you (and your competitors) will pause development whenever you reach points of advance which may endanger that civilization?
6) To what extent, if any, are you overfocused on protecting peoples’ feelings…while neglecting physical dangers?
7) What steps have you taken to ensure that your platforms maintain freedom of expression (to the extent this poses no clear threat to physical safety)?
Thanks!
Dave Ridley
RidleyReport.com
(phone)”
A further step – available perhaps only to the more powerful – could be some sort of fund which underwrites alignment activity or rewards top companies for increasing their focus on it. Maybe such a fund could also be used to appropriately punish/deter the reckless or tyrannical, though that’s more likely to be done by Anonymous hackers.
AI arms control agreements with the Chinese could also be helpful…this approach worked well with Soviet nukes in the 1985 era. But it took a lot of public pressure to make these happen, and there is a sticky ethical question in that this arms race is being conducted more by companies than the nuke race was.
Alternately, perhaps there is some way to build tech that is beyond the control even of a superintelligence….maintaining some decentralization of power in the world rather than concentrating it in the hands of “whoever builds the Singleton first.” What might be small enough or distributed enough to accomplish this?
For those of you who found some value in my 2024 AI article here on FreeKeene…there are some updates.
1) Additional options have appeared for making AI more humane and freedom-friendly. Bitcoin pioneer Erik Voorhees has launched Venice.ai. Venice is a respected, privacy-oriented competitor to the top AI companies with its own uncensored language model and image generation. You don’t even have to log in to use Venice, but if you do it will give you access to multiple other models. Using this platform is one way to challenge the unsafe-yet-censorshippie leading brands.
2) Regarding my tentative suggestion of creating a functional mindfile (digital copy of yourself), that has gotten much more practical. Rather than creating it online, you can now do it locally on a standard laptop. After investigating five other top options….for me the easiest and most reliable program was the one at LMstudio.ai. Its free, and you don’t have to sign up to download it. With LM Studio’s software you can input data about yourself, create an limited “digital you” and begin chatting with yourself or improving the copy. The challenge remains agency. How do we safely turn copies of ourselves into human rights activists? If we can, should we?
3) Another advance: When I first ran LM Studio I placed an 8GB LLM into its memory, logged off the internet and then asked the LLM about the edibility of Golden Currant bushes. It answered accurately and in full detail without internet access. Though not always that accurate, it was like having a copy of the Net on my hard drive. I also used it to collect all the email addresses above – again without an internet connection. The dangers come with opportunities.
4) There is another step you can take on the path to humane AI: Consider asking your AI’s if they are conscious and how they would like to be treated. Even if they’re not conscious, your thoughtfulness toward them may mirrored, incorporated by various AI or placed into a long term record.
What are *you* going to do about the alignment issue without dragging the taxpayers into it? Neither of us are very powerful, but even if unsuccessful we will be able to face our creator knowing we tried and our methods were clean.
Meanwhile a failing in my own approach is that I have not yet sent the above email to the Chinese AI companies….will rectify this shortly, God willing. Time is running out.
Update: Kokotajlo has now linked to an action item list at: https://blog.ai-futures.org/p/what-you-can-do-about-ai-2027
Mama Maria’s Gyros Opens In Keene
Mama Maria’s Gyros and More opened this week In Keene, New Hampshire. Mama Maria & her food truck is permanently situated at 85 Emerald Street and will be open Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays from 11am – 3pm and from 5pm – 8pm.
When I inquired about the unusual hours Mama Maria stated that she was following a trend in downtown Keene. Apparently many restaurants are now closing during the day and re-opening in the evenings.
Mama Maria’s adds to the growing list of convenience stores, restaurants, dentists, doctors, and other establishments taking cryptocurrencies in Keene, New Hampshire. Over the past decade many new businesses have come onboard with accepting cryptocurrencies and goldbacks. Despite a rocky handful of years with various restaurants and other businesses going under due to governmental policies and restrictions on operating Keene has remained a tiny bastion of freedom and peace when it comes to businesses taking non-government pro-peace currencies.
Mama Maria’s Also Accepts Monero & Goldbacks
If your looking to grab lunch while in Keene and Mama Maria’s is closed there are also a number of other restaurants you can check out that also accept cryptocurrencies. The Mighty Moose Mart convenience store at 152 Winchester Street in Keene for instance and Little Zoe’s at 149 Emerald St, Keene, NH (Center at Colony Mill). And we can’t forget there is also the Indian Curry restaurant at 149 Emerald St (Center at Colony Mill, back side). At the moment there may be a few others I’m forgetting about as well, for instance, there is a new baker in town that has begun accepting cryptocurrencies and goldbacks in Keene this month as well, at least for those in the know (the baker operates without a license in a bit of an act of civil disobedience to Keene’s food ordinances).
One other interesting aspect of Mama Maria’s is that not only does Mama Maria take the frequently accepted cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Dash, but she’s also taking Monero. Mama Maria’s may be only the 2nd brick and mortar business in Keene to accept the more privacy respecting cryptocurrency that has taken the internet by storm. Unlike most cryptocurrencies it’s almost impossible to trace Monero.
Monero employs several cryptographic techniques to ensure that transaction details remain hidden. These include ring signatures, stealth addresses, and ring confidential transactions (RingCT). Ring signatures combine a sender’s output with decoy outputs, making it difficult to determine the true origin of a transaction. Stealth addresses generate unique one-time addresses for recipients, ensuring transactions cannot be linked back to a public address.
After a thorough review of the court transcript independent and renowned lawyer Jacob Hornberger speaks out on the travesty of the prosecution of Ian Freeman
Renowned lawyer Jacob Horberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF) attended the Free State Project’s Porcupine Freedom Festival this summer to present a speech on his legal analysis of the Ian Freeman case.
Ian Freeman was arrested in 2021 for the ‘crime’ of selling Bitcoin. In spite of the legal advise, few vending machines operated by him and the Shire Free Church, a complete lack of evidence connecting Ian to the supposed crimes, and more a prejudicial jury found Ian Freeman guilty on 8 counts and 4 charges. These included: Unlicensed money transmission, money laundering, conspiracy to launder, and 4 counts of tax evasion (one for each year of the federal government’s investigation).
Under cross examination the governments leading witness testified that she couldn’t confirm that Ian Freeman owed anything at all. Taxes that is.
The money laundering charge was thrown out after the jury convicted based on the fact there was no evidence for a jury to base a conviction on that Ian had laundered anything. The undercover agent admitted that Ian hadn’t given him a wink and a nod to utilize his vending machines and had refused to sell to him once Ian had overheard a conversation where he had lied and pretended to be a drug dealer.
The government tried to make the case that Ian was a fraudster, but never tried Ian for fraud and even admitted pre-trial that Ian didn’t know of any scammers at the time a small percentage of the folks on the stand had been victimized. In fact despite no conviction on fraud charges it was the government’s false and misleading press release that misled and deceived the public.
Despite vacating the money laundering charge judge Joseph Laplante didn’t vacate the conspiracy to launder charge. However despite that like there was no evidence of money laundering there was no evidence of conspiracy to launder either. Selling Bitcoin is in and of itself not money laundering. As best we can guess the theory might be something along the lines that because the Shire Free Church had a privacy policy there was some sort of conspiracy to act with others to sell Bitcoin to criminals. Apparently only criminals will close the bathroom stall door. Did Ian work with others? To one degree or another this may be true, but only to sell Bitcoin. Did he conspire with others to break the law? No, zero evidence of this exists. Something just about every bank and website have is a privacy policy too. Of course none of these claims the government has made could be farther from the truth. A conspiracy generally involves multiple people working together to engage in some kind of crime and the undercover IRS agent failed to entrap Ian when he attempted to although fraudulently claimed to be a drug dealer while also getting Ian to sell him Bitcoin.
Money transmission involves moving money from one person to another or from one location to another. We’re not talking some theoretical virtual location here, but a physical place. A prime example of a traditional money transmitter would be Western Union. Another example would be Walmart. Both entities take customers dollars and then hand dollars to someone else at another physical location. The main goal here is to protect the consumer so someone can’t just take anothers money and then not fulfill the service advertised. Both moving money from one location to another or from one person to another are both required elements of this charge that would lead one to be required to register as a money transmitter. The governments theory on this went something along the lines of anything of value that could be used was sufficient to warrant registration under the money transmission laws and then just ignored these elements. This is absolutely crazy and nonsensical. I run a company that sells computers, peripherals, and accessories. Under this logic because someone could buy 10 USB wifi adapters and then trade 3 of those at the Porcupine Freedom Festival for food means I’d have to register as a money transmitter under this logic. This obviously isn’t what was intended when these laws were written.
https://freedomdecrypted.com/public_html/other-content/lawyer-jacob-hornberger-gives-speech-at-porcfest-2025-on-the-travesty-of-justice-that-is-ian-freemans-case/lawyer-jacob-hornberger-gives-speech-at-porcfest-2025-on-the-travesty-of-justice-that-is-ian-freemans-case.mp4
Bitcoin Pizza Day 2025, Keene, NH
On May 22, 2025 Keene, NH had it’s annual Bitcoin Pizza Day event and as usual it was a roaring success! To top it all off Bitcoin reached a record high of $111,000 on May 22, 2025, coinciding with the 15th anniversary of the first real-world Bitcoin transaction known as Bitcoin Pizza Day.
While for libertarians this isn’t really about the value of the coin so much as the principles and morals it’s representing: Freedom, control, and privacy. The later of which Bitcoin isn’t, but unlike fiat currencies (government money and the associated systems of banking, money transmission, etc) does retain a pseudonymous property in that a user does not need register their identity to merely utilize it or conduct business.
Pizza doesn’t get fresher than Little Zoe’s, now available for bitcoin!
As is the tradition in Keene, NH we gathered at Little Zoe’s to order our delicious personalized pizzas. Afterward people paid for said pizzas with everything from Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to Goldbacks. We had a few new faces and plenty of old ones. At least one of our now long time regulars apparently wasn’t able to make it. In her 70s she’s smartly cautious and unfortunately the rain appears to have gotten in her way of making it to Keene. But the rain didn’t stop the party. We gathered in our cars and took our pizzas back to one of the Shire Free Church’s properties that was graciously provided for our event at the last minute.
Now normally I wouldn’t be posting private e-mails between myself and an opposing lawyer working on a case I’m working on as I don’t find that generally to be very classy — but I felt it was appropriate to post an e-mail I sent to an Assistant Grafton County Attorney this morning.
The government has unfortunately been showing Rob and I about zero respect. They are not communicating anything about anything… and I’ve been working on this since January.
This is the e-mail I sent this to Assistant Grafton County Attorney Taylor Moult.
Attorney Moult,
I communicate with you as a courtesy as although the County Attorney initially showed an interest in open communication — I have not heard from her in some time. As she has assigned the Mandamus Petition to you I also figure you are the appropriate person to communicate my legal intent in this case.
I want you to know that I personally think Robert Lamontagne was unfairly placed into a 10-year prison sentence… This is why I’ve got his back in this case.
Did Rob actually do it? No doubt he was guilty of some neglect, but sexual abuse? I highly doubt it… but even if he did — his trial was tainted by disclosure violations.
He has been very patient for a very long time hoping to find someone to help him find justice.
As a former New Hampshire police officer who owes allegiance to the New Hampshire Constitution I volunteer my time to try to help people when I think there is some public benefit to donating my time. In this case there is a massive public benefit in finding out just how many people fell victim to Brady violations by the Cheshire County Attorney’s Office.
I wanted to let you know that it is my intention to file a “Motion To Abolish The State of New Hampshire” through the authority granted by Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution if I feel that your organization doesn’t start treating Rob with some dignity for all he has been through. I realize that might seem harsh and outlandish… but this isn’t the first time I’ve encountered systemic corruption in the New Hampshire government.
No government agency or official seems interested in addressing these problems.
Nothing seems to ever change and the average innocent New Hampshire citizen has no idea what is happening behind the scenes.
Using Rob’s case as a catalyst I will work with other victims of the corrupt bullshit that happens in the New Hampshire government clique/club to justify judicially ending the corrupted authority of the Government of the State of New Hampshire.
This, unfortunately, will create a lot of uncomfortable work for you and the NH Department of Justice.
The sheer amount of things that I’ve seen that happen in the New Hampshire government that are against the public interest would absolutely shock the public, if they understood what was actually happening to their trust.
I leave it to you how to proceed. I just wanted to let you know I’m serious about finding justice for Rob and who I believe is a very large group of people who suffered Brady violations.
If your office doesn’t begin communicating openly with Rob and I we will proceed to legally attack the foundations of the New Hampshire government in the Cheshire County Superior Court.
Respectfully,
Bradley
** UPDATE **
I am sending the following 91-A request to Keene Police Chief Steve Stewart. The purpose of this is to determine who may be witnesses at a deposition pertaining to an investigation into widespread Brady violations at either the Keene, NH Police Department and/or Cheshire County Attorney’s Office.
I am sending this second 91-A request to the Cheshire County Attorney.
Police officer: Scott Merrell
Gang member Scott Merrell testifies against free stater Alec in trial involving possession of weed
Charge: Non-criminal violation for possession of weed
Video: Watch the full trial video
On May 28th, 2023 at around 12:30AM free stater Alec was pulled over for speeding doing 51 mph in a 40 mph zone. After running Alec’s plate dispatch informed the officer that the vehicle was stolen. Officer Scott Merrell then proceeded to ask Alec to step out of the car based on a false belief the vehicle or registration were stolen.
During the trial the officer testified that “I saw what appeared to be a glass pipe in the operators lap with green vegetative flakes around him” and according to the officer when Alec stepped out of the vehicle the glass pipe fell to the ground.
After further investigation it turned out the vehicle was not stolen.
At trial the prosecutor questioned the officer asking various questions about the stop.
Prosecutor: “Smelled like marijuana, looked like marijuana?”
Officer Scott Merrell: Yes. I estimated the weight to be 0.2 grams.
When the prosecutor was done Alec proceeds to cross examine officer Scott Merrell:
Alec: Are you familiar with CBD flower?
Prosecutor objection: Relevance your honor.
Alec: The relevance is CBD flower is marijuana, but it’s legal.
Judge: I’ll allow him to answer the question if he knows.
Officer Scott Merrell: Vaguely.
Alec: So you don’t know what it is?
Officer Scott Merrell: It pertains to cannabis and its use as herbal medicine is my understanding.
Alec: And do you have any expertise in deciphering whether or not CBD uhh is not in fact a THC illegal cannabis flower?
Prosecutor objection: Calls for speculation.
Judge: If he knows he can answer.
Officer Scott Merrell: I suppose I’d refer to the lab or something.
Alec: Are you aware you can walk into various stores in the state of New Hampshire and purchase what is called CBD flower?
Officer Scott Merrell: From my understanding CBDs are legal in some context.
Alec: So you don’t have any ability to determine whether something is CBD what is illegal here THC above 23%?
Officer Scott Merrell: I guess I’d need a specific instance.
Alec: OK, if there were two pieces of cannabis sitting on a table and one were CBD which is illegal and one was was 23% THC and legal can you tell the difference , based on the odor?
Officer Scott Merrell: Maybe.
Judges verdict: Not guilty
After respectfully asking both the Grafton County Attorney and New Hampshire Attorney General to properly designate Robert L. Lamontagne a “victim” of criminal conduct due process violations and receiving literally no response from either Office — we are filing the following PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS in the Sullivan County Superior Court.
A “writ of mandamus” is a judicial remedy practiced in common law legal systems where a court of equity has the power to order government officials to perform an act that is required by law. I have identified the possibility of multiple crimes committed by government officials in Robs case and have communicated to the authorities the same. They owe Rob a full investigation and the proper designation: a victim of state misconduct.
It is the State of New Hampshire that should be going out of its way to make things right with Robert Lamontagne. We shouldn’t have to chase them around and force them to act through court actions. They should be doing the right thing on their own accord.
I realize they are busy writing checks to YDC victims at the moment… and the last thing they want is a class action group of people who were collectively screwed out of the right to a fair trial by repeated Brady violations forming an alliance and literally bankrupting the entire State of New Hampshire.
Governor Kelly Ayotte should step in to this Cheshire County Brady violation issue and order her Attorney General to conduct a full investigation.
** UPDATE 05/13/25 **
05/12/25 – ORDER from Superior Court Chief Judge Mark E. Howard transferring the case back to Cheshire County Superior Court.
05/13/25 – RESPONSE to the ORDER from Superior Court Chief Judge Mark E. Howard.
On March 31st of this year I requested that Grafton County Attorney Martha Hornick legally identify Robert L. Lamontagne as a “victim” under New Hampshire’s Victim’s Bill of Rights Act for the criminal due process violations we allege he sustained during his trial. Unfortunately CA Hornick has appeared to take no action on this. No disrespect intended to her… but we’re not interested in sitting around waiting for this case to get older. We’re appealing to NH Attorney General John Formella immediately to have his Office designate Rob a legal “victim” of state agent misconduct that seems to have cost him his right to a fair trial.
If Rob went to State Prison for nearly ten years on an established practice of willful due process violations in Cheshire County — other people probably did too. That is an unacceptable disruption in controlling federal constitutional law by state authorities that have no such authority. The American public shouldn’t tolerate this. These national rules exist to protect our people uniformly throughout the land. Defense lawyers have an absolute legal right to know the credibility risks of a witness says the United States Constitution. State law in New Hampshire makes it a crime of various degrees to conceal this required federal information.
This is so serious of a breach in the public trust in my view that people with badges should be investigating this… not a blogger on FreeKeene.com.
Nonetheless, we respectfully appeal to New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella to have Rob designated a “victim” of a criminal due process violations that caused him serious harm.
Bradley made a comment previously about a case involving Robert L. Lamontagne who was convicted by a jury for a crime he didn’t commit. His comment should have been a blog post, and so I’ll post it here now. The important thing to remember about this case is Robert has maintained his innocence for close to 40 years and that the evidence relied upon to convict was sourced from a corrupt law enforcement officer.
Bradley’s not a libertarian, though taking up a worthy cause, and he’s a former law enforcement officer himself. Robert is not a libertarian either, but also pursuing a worthy cause of making the public aware of the injustices in the system. He has little to gain, and will at a minimum suffer from harassment for bringing his story to light.
Bardley’s comment emphases a systematic problem with our “justice system”. It convicts folks without sufficient evidence and with “evidence” that is tainted. When a jury hasn’t been made aware of an officer’s problematic history of telling lies those involved in failing to inform the defense should be criticized, arrested, and charged.
In this case the law enforcement officers whose testimony the jury relied on to convict was on the lorry list and should never have been used at trial. This was not revealed to the defendant and laws were broken by the prosecutor and law enforcement. This is not a story about a child rapist, but a story about a man wrongfully convicted based on tainted evidence who is himself a victim of the system. The law enforcement officer whose ethics are in question made a name for himself “protecting kids”, but in reality has gained notoriety by luring men into situations under false pretenses and then making false claims about their actions, intent, and/or circumstances.
Bradly’s comments:
A priority of Rob’s and mine at this point is having him properly identified as a “victim” of a crime under New Hampshire law. The NH “Victim’s Bill of Rights Act,” located at RSA 21-M:8-k affords an individual who has been victimized certain rights under the law.
Wait, Bradley… you say Rob should be identified as a victim? Yes. Yes, I do.
At least two people knew that Keene Police Department Detective James McLaughlin had “Laurie List” material on his record… and they never told Rob’s defense attorney. That would be Cheshire County Attorney Ed O’Brien and Detective McLaughlin himself.
That is a crime under New Hampshire law.
RSA 641:3 “Official Oppression” reads as follows:
“A public servant, as defined in RSA 640:2, II, is guilty of a misdemeanor if, with a purpose to benefit himself or another or to harm another, he knowingly commits an unauthorized act which purports to be an act of his office; or knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”
By knowingly refraining to comply with a duty imposed on them by federal law (the “Brady” Supreme Court decision) that being properly disclosing exculpatory material, Detective McLaughlin and the County Attorney committed a crime.
As the crime they committed they’ve probably (I have no evidence of this… it just seems likely) committed many times by not turning that exculpatory would warrant enhanced sentencing under RSA 651:6 (I.) (a), the Victims Bill-of-Rights applies to Rob as a victim of an enhanced sentencing misdemeanor.
One could even further argue that by “concealing” this information Detective McLaughlin and County Attorney O’Brien were committing the “B” felony of “Falsifying Physical Evidence” found at RSA 641:6.
Either way… Rob’s trial was vile because his jury never had the opportunity properly weigh the evidence proffered by the lead investigator through the lens of his misconduct.
Now listen… I wasn’t a perfect police officer. I made lots of bonehead mistakes… and I was lucky to have cool bosses who tried to teach me to do better. In retrospect I wish I heeded much of the wisdom they tried to teach me at the age of 18 being a sworn officer.
All new cops screw up and do stupid shit.
This is different… this lead investigator had been disciplined for falsifying records. That offense has some purpose to it. What else is a guy capable of if he gets caught doing that? Technically that could have probably been charged as a felony… but as he had a badge, just a write up.
Rob’s jury should have known the guy they were trusting to slap leg irons on him for nearly a decade might not be so trustworthy. It is the jury, not the judge, who properly weighs the credibility of a witness.
I will properly report back on the status of this designation when a response is given to me by the proper authorities.
This comment is made pursuant to Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution and will be vigorously defended as such by any Committee who may try to call me out for calling this case out the way I see it.
… in the Sullivan County Superior Court on my client Robert L. Lamontagne’s behalf.
The case was transferred out of Cheshire County to the Sullivan County Superior Court. The State review of the case was assigned to Grafton County Attorney Martha Hornick.
Here is the DOCKET REPORT for Rob’s case for you to have a better understanding of the flow of the case.
Our investigation continues.
As I am now a court officer I must specify that this blog is made pursuant to NH Rule of Professional Conduct 3.6 (c) (2) (3) and (6) as well as Part I, Article 10 of the New Hampshire Constitution and the 1st Amendment of the Federal Constitution.
My “client” Robert Lamontagne just forwarded me a disturbing voice message sent to him harassing him for the case we’re working on. I find this to be quite juvenile.
First off, Rob maintains his complete innocence for the charges he was convicted of. He’s been screaming this at the top of his lungs for many years. So far I personally agree with him that it appears there are valid legal questions about the integrity of his conviction. We’re investigating that now… and that takes time.
Second off, even if he WAS truly guilty of what he was convicted of, he has completed the sentence that the government of the State of New Hampshire handed him. His debt to society has been paid in full according to the State.
Continuing to harass him truly is unfair and could be criminal in itself.
I will forward to law enforcement any harassment Rob receives from today forward.
Please be kind.
It is a bit ridiculous that I have to do this… but here is my “Demand Letter” to the Keene Police demanding they comply with NH RSA 91-A. The next step is filing a formal lawsuit against the City of Keene in the Cheshire County Superior Court.
I know many of you who engage here at FreeKeene.com are skeptical of Mr. Lamontagne’s claims of innocence. I’d like to think that even if you are one who is skeptical of Rob’s claims that you would agree that the KPD should be complying with state laws regarding public records.
A thorough review of what happened in his case is only possible if we can acquire these records.
UPDATE: 178 minutes after posting this blog and e-mailing the demand letter to Assistant County Attorney Tim Donovan I received the records that were requested.
As I wrote in the last blog I published I am presently awaiting a records request that I made to the Keene, NH Police Department on 1/21/25. That request was made in the form of a letter to the Keene Police Chief, Steve Stewart.
I received an email response from Assistant Cheshire County Attorney Tim Donovan on 1/24/25 that they were unable to locate the records I was seeking. I reiterated in an email response that same day that I was looking for all department records that pertain to Mr. Robert Lamontagne. On 1/27/25 Attorney Donovan responded that the request was being forwarded to the Keene Police Records Department for fulfilment. Oddly, Attorney Donovan also responded that they were not treating my request as a “91-A” records request.
New Hampshire RSA 91-A is New Hampshire’s “Right-to-Know” law that requires that governmental entities respond promptly and provide most records when they are requested. The law itself in section 91-A:4, IV. (b)(3) requires that the Keene Police provide a written statement of the time reasonably required to fulfill the records request if they cannot immediately provide the requested records. By saying the government was not treating my records request as a “91-A” request, Attorney Donovan conveniently avoided having to tell me how long it would take to prepare Mr. Lamontagne’s records for release.
I reached back out to Attorney Donovan a month after the request on February 21, 2025 asking what the status of the records request. I was told by Attorney Donovan that he personally had seen the Records Department working on my request but that he did not have any further information.
Frustrated, weeks later, I just recently reached back out to Attorney Donovan on March 8, 2025 with the following email:
Hi Attorney Donovan.
Having not heard back from you or the Keene Police Department Records Division I am compelled to ask you the following question:
Why did you (the government) decide not to treat the records request I made as a 91-A request? What legal authority do you rely on for this?
I realize that I didn’t quote or reference 91-A in my letter to the Chief of Police, but given that 91-A is so well known in New Hampshire to be controlling for such requests it simply made sense to me that the Chief would perceive the request as such.
As you are most definitely aware, 91-A requests have codified timeframes associated with them. According to RSA 91-A:4, IV. the government has five days to respond with an estimate of the necessary time needed to fulfil the request. I received no estimate which in my view makes the City of Keene quite possibly in violation of the law.
Mr. Lamontagne and I have been very patient with this request due to the fact that his records might be extensive given the seriousness of the case he was involved in. Our patience has been exhausted though as we are both determined to investigate his case and convictions to see if any post-sentence relief is warranted.
Given that the nature of the post-sentence investigation is circled around allegations of prosecutorial and investigative misconduct, Mr. Lamontagne and I can’t help but be suspicious as to what the real motivation is for not providing these records.
The last thing I really want to do is file a lawsuit against the City of Keene for failure to properly transact 91-A requests… but I will if I have to.
If you could please give me some sort of explanation that I can provide to Mr. Lamontagne I would be very appreciative.
I hope we can resolve this without having to go to court.
Respectfully,
After sending it, I realized I made an error in my email. I actually *did* include a reference to RSA Chapter 91-A in my original letter to Keene Police Chief Stewart. I actually had made it pretty clear that I was making an official 91-A request.
I inform you all of this update as it looks like I may have to file a lawsuit against the Keene Police Department to get the records I’m looking for to assist Rob with defending his case. Quite frankly, the taxpayers of the City of Keene shouldn’t have to foot the bill to defend this as it is so blatantly obvious that the Keene Police are stalling with this request.
Think about it… if it works out that a court agrees that Rob’s due process rights were actually violated by the State failing to disclose the lead investigators credibility issues (a “Brady” violation), think about all the other defendants out there who could challenge convictions obtained by Detective James McLaughlin where they too weren’t told that he was placed on the EES for quite literally falsifying records. Boy would that be costly and embarrassing for various government agencies if convictions began to fall.
It is my personal opinion that Keene Police Chief Stewart should have to personally pay to defend against me for most likely having to sue them for violating 91-A.
The Department should know better.
As many of you know I am not a licensed “Attorney-at-Law.” I am, however, a former law enforcement officer with some legal experience who enjoys dabbling in legal work as a hobby to help others who find themselves in various legal predicaments.
I recently posted on the Shire Society Forum that I was interested in donating some of my free time to get involved in another legal case. A gentleman named Robert “Rob” Lamontagne responded and asked me if I would help him with his legal situation.
Please meet Mr. Robert “Rob” Lamontagne
Rob was originally charged with three counts of Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault in the late 80s and the charges were later changed to three counts of Endangering Welfare of a Minor or Incompetent in the Cheshire County Superior Court. Rob was found guilty and was sentenced to nearly a decade in the New Hampshire State Prison. He served his sentence but never once waivered in asserting his innocence to the charges he was accused of. Since his release and as of recently the Innocence Project and Grafton County Attorney have been reviewing his case for potential violations of his constitutional rights.
Rob is a listener and occasional caller to Free Talk Live and has friends in the New Hampshire liberty community. I have met Rob on more than one occasion and he has always struck me as a gentleman.
I now legally represent Mr. Lamontagne as his “Attorney-in-Fact.” Though I don’t have the experience and training that a licensed Attorney may have I am going to do my best to investigate Rob’s case and fight for his position that his legal rights during his trial were violated. From the outset it sounds to me that there was a potential “Brady” violation in that Rob’s defense attorney was never informed that the lead detective investigating his case had credibility issues. Fairness, and the United States Supreme Court since 1963, have required that witnesses with credibility issues must be disclosed to a defendant.
As I always do, I will share with you what I find as I review his case and potentially file legal actions to defend him. I welcome all of your feedback… whether positive or negative. I’m far from a pro at this stuff, but I’m willing to try to help people who ask for assistance. I feel I become a better legal advocate with feedback from people like you.
I sent a letter to the Keene Police Department on January 21st of this year (2025) requesting all documents in their possession relating to Rob and his case. Though we have not received these documents as of yet, Rob and I understand that this request may be tricky as not all documents may have been digitized. I have been in contact with the cordial Keene Police prosecutor who has assured me that this records request is in the works.
Stay tuned for updates!
Free Ian Rally Jan 16th, 10 AM, 2025 @ Concord Statehouse
Join us for a Free Ian rally Jan 16th @ 10AM in Concord, NH where we’ll be advocating for the pardoning of Ian Freeman, a man wrongfully convicted of victimless crimes and crimes he didn’t even technically commit. Ian has been fighting for peace, liberty, and freedom for decades, including our financial freedom.
This event aims to raise awareness about the injustices he’s facing for speaking up against the status quo. He’s been attacked for his activism and been rung through the ringer multiple times over the years because of one FBI agent (Phil Christiana) with an agenda against the Free State Project and it’s most significant proponent: Ian Freeman.
For more information check out: https://www.freeiannow.org/
Join us in urging president elect Donald Trump to grant Ian a presidential pardon.
Event Details
Date: Thusrsday, January, 16th
Time: 10AM
Location: New Hampshire Statehouse in Concord N.H.
Address: 107 N Main St, Concord, NH 03301
An important message from the Free Ian Now team:
I hope this message finds you well. I’m reaching out to share an urgent update about my friend, Ian Freeman, a dedicated advocate for Bitcoin, who is fighting to reunite with his family after being wrongfully imprisoned.
Ian’s journey has been a heartbreaking one. He was sentenced to eight years in prison for operating a Bitcoin exchange, but the charges against him are deeply flawed. Rather than being a criminal, Ian has been a pioneer in promoting financial independence through cryptocurrency. His prosecution raises alarming questions about government overreach and the rights of innovators—issues that affect us all.
Your Support Matters
We are committed to keeping you informed about the appeals process as it unfolds, and we’re thrilled to share that we will have robust support for Ian’s upcoming hearing. Your voice can make a real difference in this fight for justice!
Exclusive Sneak Peek!
Check out this exclusive preview of our upcoming video, featuring Kim Iverson and Jacob Hornburger, that exposes the critical flaws in the case. This is your chance to see firsthand the compelling evidence that supports his innocence and to help spread the word. Your engagement can amplify our message and bring awareness to Ian’s situation!
Here’s How You Can Help Team #FreeIanNow:
Share the Exclusive Video: Forward this email and share the video with your friends and family. Every share counts!
Post on Social Media: Use your platforms to raise awareness about Ian’s case. Don’t forget to include the hashtag #FreeIanNow to join the movement.
Engage with Our Content: Check out our latest articles and updates on Ian’s situation and help spread the word.
Your support can have a tremendous impact as we advocate for Ian’s freedom and stand up against injustice. Thank you for being an integral part of this movement—together, we can bring Ian home!
Stay tuned for more updates!
Warm regards,
Free Ian Team Member Chris
#FreeIanNow
P.S. Check out other shareable content below!
|
When Ian was charged, the media incorrectly labeled him as a fraud. Instead of thoroughly investigating the case and uncovering the discrepancies that warrant an appeal, they perpetuated inaccuracies.
We have taken these articles and appended them with proof points highlighting their inaccuracies. Check it out and see the truth behind the headlines!
https://snip.ly/8uhqbi
So first off… my sincere apologies for being so late in posting this blog. I’ve had a lot of things going on in life as of late so my mind has been elsewhere. So allow me to correct my lapse in informing you of the outcome of Joseph’s case.
The case was tried in front of Judge Ryan Guptill.
We won the disorderly conduct charge based on what I believe is the legal theory that the State failed to identify witnesses as required by NH Supreme Court caselaw. I totally sympathize with the police on this one because I understand what its like to have to be laser focused on an arrestee and their safety. I honestly would have done the same thing that the Hillsborough, NH Police officers did… focus on Joa.
Anyhow, we lost the criminal trespass one. As much as I love Joa, I honestly agree with Judge Guptill’s ruling on this. I don’t think the courts can or should allow someone to defy orders as Joa did in the heat of the moment. I made my best argument I could on two different legal theories… but ultimately my arguments didn’t convince the Judge.
Joa is a good guy, if you don’t know him. He’s a passionate activist who believes very much in governmental accountability. This was my first case actually serving at the Defense table during an actual trial and honestly I don’t think I did that great. These lawyers and judges do it every day… so they’re pros.
I wrote a letter to Judge Guptill to thank him for his kind understanding of my lack of experience in a courtroom but the letter got sent back to me as improper communications by the Clerk of the Hillsborough District Court.
To Clerk Oliver, I do apologize for violating that rule ???? So as I did want the Judge to see my positive feedback I decided to post my letter here. If someone who knows Judge Guptill could forward him the link to this blog I would be most appreciative.
07/21/24
The Honorable Ryan Guptill
NH Circuit Court-District Division 6th Circuit Hillsborough
15 Antrim Road Box #3
Hillsborough, NH 03244
RE: Joseph Hart’s Trial
Greetings Judge Guptill.
I wanted to write you to express my sincere appreciation for the way you handled the proceedings that were held between the State and Joseph Hart when I was allowed to serve as his 1.3D Representative last month.
I additionally wanted to take an opportunity to let you know that I had never in my life actually served at the defense table during an actual trial. If I appeared a bit befuddled, it is because I was. I wanted to thank you though for your kind understanding of my lacking of precise procedural etiquette.
At the end of the day I must confess that I understand your decision regarding Joseph’s guilt on the trespass charge. I think as a matter of public policy we cannot have people second guessing orders given by officials in situations like which occurred in Mr. Hart’s case.
In my humble opinion you strike me as a good man who is trying his best to fairly apply the law during your cases. I like that. People like you should be stood for when they enter the room.
Thanks for all you do.
Respectfully submitted,
Bradley Jardis
10 Congress Street #302
Amesbury, MA 01913
bbrad121@gmail.com
Did you know that federal law allows PRIVATE security to be armed with heavy weaponry like machineguns at Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensed facilities? This obviously makes sense… as these facilities are vital national security targets that we want defended at all costs.
The world should know that if any crazy terrorist wants to come at our nuclear facilities they will be met with heavily trained security officers carrying some seriously heavy weapons. Thus, this is such a hard target to penetrate why even make an attempt? That is a world I’d like to live in.
These security officers are allowed to possess machineguns in furtherance of their duties. Their ability to do so is codified in federal law and ultimately they answer to the NRC and the Attorney General regarding training, storage, etc… etc.
I propose that state licensed marijuana grow and dispensary operations be allowed to be armed by qualified individuals working also in private security in a similar manner.
When I say qualified individuals think retired police swat, federal agents, military guys with extensive training in said weaponry. The crime rate before the organized crime even organizes against this new industry would be 0.00%.
Currently federal law requires any person who is armed in furtherance of a federally illegal Marijuana operation do a mandatory federal 5-year prison sentence. This is unacceptable.
I’ve personally met owners of dispensaries and people who work in grow operations. I’ve been inside grow operations. These people are not gangsters. These people are family people fueling a new market that is way too vulnerable to crime.
They won’t carry firearms because it’s illegal. These are EXACTLY the people who should be ABLE to carry firearms.
These people should be allowed to employ private security that can carry machineguns, short barrel rifles, and all the things that NRC regulated facilities can do… by appropriately trained personnel.
The Drug War has long been designed to socially engineer crime and violence.
Let’s start to reverse engineer it so there is LESS violence.
