Friday • April 19 • 2024
Vol.XVI • No.XVI
Manchester, N.H.
Ian Freeman Gets His Freedom Back: Running GNU/Linux On His Laptop Again
Ian Freeman of the Crypto6 is once again free to utilize his choice of operating systems: GNU/Linux. Back in ~ May of 2021 the feds took away Ian’s freedom of choice in what software he could utilize despite never having been convicted of any crimes. A tactic they regularly utilize against their victims. The purported reason for the arrest this time around was over the bastardly crime of selling crypto. However, after a decade of being targeted by the feds and the feds targeting other free staters and leading liberty activists in New Hampshire it’s a bit hard to believe that it was anything other than a politically motivated attack on freedom in the free state. This is at least the 2nd raid of Free Talk Live’s studio in the past 5 years, and the third incident involving federal agents and Ian / 73-75 Leverett St since ~2012.
However this isn’t what this story is about. It’s about the federal government’s attack on all things freedom and that includes the use of free software. What is disturbing about this is that the state is utilizing bail restrictions to prevent people from utilizing free software and has been doing it since at least the 1990s. Unlike other cases I have not heard of anyone else being successful in getting this type of restriction lifted and that’s quite disturbing. It took Ian more than a year and a pricey lawyer to get a ruling to lift this unreasonable and burdensome restriction on his right to utilize the software of his choice.
The good news of course is that with the help of his lawyer he was able to get the judge to lift this bail restriction. The bad news is that it comes just a week before his trial is set to begin. Yes- that’s right. It took ~19 months not including the two months that Ian spent in a cage to get a ruling to restore his right to utilize free software. And that’s ~2 months under which he was illegally held based on a magistrates misunderstanding of the law.
You might think this story ends with an operating system, but it’s not so. Not only did this restriction exist, but he’s also been prohibited from utilizing other free software. There is also an explicit prohibition on his use of Telegram. Now there is an argument for the restriction on his use of Telegram. At least in theory the argument would go that Telegram was a tool utilized in the course of conducting some sort of criminal enterprise. The problem with this logic is of course that a phone was also utilized in the course of conducting whatever sort of criminal enterprise that the prosecution has imagined up. Yet- there is no restriction for the use of a telephone.
There are many other unreasonable restrictions and violations of justice that defendants not convicted of any crimes face when being pursued by authorities who more often than not have no real basis for the restrictions on an accused freedoms. Ian they claimed was a flight risk- yet had no basis other than unsubstantiated claims of wealth, of which the judge eventually ruled was not a basis for holding someone. In fact even mob bosses can’t be held without bail! Yet- nothing stopped the prosecutor from slandering Ian’s good name and calling him a “kingpin”. No penalty will emerge from such actions because prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement are generally immune.
What can we do to change this? Well, not much. Without moving for independence New Hampshire residents will always be under the thumb of federal agents looking to attack freedom in the state. Fortunately there has been a growing independence movement in the state. If you’ve not heard of it check out https://www.nhexit.us for more information on the independence movement.
Not yet in New Hampshire? Well, if you believe in joining with other like minded persons to achieve liberty in our lifetime you should join the migration of liberty-minded folk moving to New Hampshire. After a decade of work free staters have achieved almost ~100 liberty friendly reps. While it may be another 8-10 years at our current rate of increasing representation to achieve more significant victories your move could help increase the pace. Not to mention we do have some small victories !
In 2017 for instance free staters worked with state representatives to pass a bill protecting New Hampshire businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies from state regulators. The bill passed and the governor even signed it into into law. There have been many other small victories like this one, but as has been demonstrated by the arrest of the Crypto6~ more needs to be done to achieve real freedom in our lifetime. If you’re a liberty-minded person join us in New Hampshire and we can achieve real freedom together.
Thanks to the hard work of liberty superactivist Justin O’Donnell, “101 Reasons to Liberty Lives in NH” has been completely re-done and updated in written form. It’s now called “Live Free and Thrive: 101 Reasons Liberty Lives in New Hampshire, and So Should You!” You can download it here as a PDF, for free. It’s also available for Kindle and in paperback form.
The original list, created two decades ago, has long needed an update as there have been so many amazing successes since then thanks to the thousands of people who have moved here for the Free State Project and NH Freedom Migration.
The new list will also be made into a documentary film and if you’d like to contribute to its production, please click here.
NHexit.US
The NHexit.US blog has a detailed story looking at what happened to the 13 state representatives who voted for the NH Independence bill this year, CACR 32. How many of them were re-elected? Turns out, of those who ran again and made it to the general election, 100% of them were re-elected!
Despite the democrats trying to make secession an issue, and despite the fears of the state reps who were too cowardly to vote for the bill, we now know that being in favor of NH independence, or at least being in favor of letting the people vote on the question – which is all the bill would have done – is not a guaranteed end to a state rep’s career.
For a full breakdown of how the NH Independence reps fared in this year’s election, see the article here at NHexit.US.
11/15/22 Crypto6 Evidentiary Hearing
After almost 7 years of waiting we’ve finally got a trial date! So mark your calendar and put your employer on notice that you’ll need a few weeks off as there is finally a solid date for the trial: December 6th, 2022. Address: U.S. District Court, 55 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301. Time yet to be known. Bring a valid state issued ID (real ID and passport not required) to ensure entrance to court house, no cameras/phones.
Early 2013 interaction between Phil Christiana and free staters
For those who haven’t been paying attention and wondering what the Crypto6 case is all about here is a bit of the backstory. In March of 2021 56 FBI agents, half a dozen three letter agencies, and dozens of other law enforcement officials raided the Bitcoin Embassy, the Shire Free Church, Free Talk Live’s studio, a half dozen homes of so-called co-conspirators among other locations over the bastardly crime of selling crypto.
Somewhat closer to reality the story actually dates back decades and surrounds a single FBI agent with a political grudge against libertarians, free staters, and the Free State Project’s libertarian migration to New Hampshire. To shorten the backstory a bit further after a decade of attempting to take Ian Freeman out and three FBI investigations later FBI agent Phil Christiana finally thinks he has a case he can make stick against his primary political opponent Ian Freeman. You see Ian Freeman is a significant figure in libertarian circles and was responsible for many early movers partaking in the Free State Project’s migration. Some would even credit him with the success of the Free State Project itself. Ian’s activism in New Hampshire dates back about ~16 years now and has been a thorn in the side of Phil Christiana and the federal government for nearly as long. With a majorly syndicated libertarian run radio show Ian has enabled public criticism of government, government agencies, and officials with a show called Free Talk Live broadcasting on about ~200 radio stations nationwide. During this time Ian & co-hosts have promoted the Free State Project and cryptocurrency as a path to peace and freedom. Something dirty agents just don’t like.
The Hearing
The most recent hearing was significant in deciding many issues. The hearing started with a ‘daubert motion’ which is a motion discussed outside the presence of a jury to exclude the testimony of expert witnesses that do not possess the requisite level of expertise or otherwise used questionable methods to obtain data. In this case one of the defendant’s objectives was to exclude an expert that headed the blockchain forensics unit of the FBI and claimed to be an expert on blockchain analysis.
The prosecution granted Ian Freeman’s lawyer Mark Sisti a pre-hearing interview with the prosecution’s blockchain expert and key witness in the case Erin Montgomery. In that interview it came to light that Erin Montgomery has never been qualified as an expert witness before any court. Mark Sisti proceeded to argue that blockchain analysis was not a scientifically validated process sufficient to pass muster at trial. While it has been utilized in other cases to obtain search warrants and the like the standards for use at trial are far greater. In order to utilize blockchain analysis at trial the tools and processes would need to be open to peer review and the results be duplicable by outside experts.
One question that the defenses lawyer raised was whether or not the prosecutors filings constituted a community of experts. For which the prosecutor responded that she was an expert on co-spend. Co-spend is the tracing of the flow of bitcoins via clustering by co-spending which looks at addresses that create a transaction controlled by a given wallet. Effectively the testimony would attempt to prove the different Bitcoin addresses were controlled by the same person or entity.
The defense further clarified that the problem with letting the witness on the stand to testify was that it would give an aura or the appearance that the witness was an expert. To which the judge said he was also not even sure the witness was an expert witness either. As such he was inclined to allow the witness to offer an opinion, but only for story telling sake.
The prosecution proceeded to clarify that it was more about co-spend, not her being an expert.
Mark, the defense lawyer, then got concerned about qualifying her as a witness if not an expert implying that there were different standards of evidence for witnesses than expert witnesses.
Erin Montgomery was then asked to take the stand and testify about her qualifications. She stated that she worked for the FBI in a supervisory role within the virtual asset unit providing expert support. Her expertise covered crypto and decentralized virtual assets. Her qualifications included a liberal arts and history degree and 15 years of service with the FBI. She worked for the FBI’s cyber division unit which was a unit that focused on financially motivated cyber crime.
What makes her qualified to speak as an expert witness included:
– Early on she educated herself using online forums
– As books became available she read up further on Bitcoin
In 2011 Erin Montgomery was one of two people who took “ownership” in the FBI’s first big push into cryptocurrency. From the beginning she was part of a criminal investigation unit that created the virtual asset unit.
She then proceeded to specialize in doing blockchain tracing using open source tools and later commercial tools. She obtained two certificates from a company called Chainalysis which produces a commercial blockchain tracing tool.
She eventually became the supervisor of strategic and tactical groups developing the FBI’s curriculum for blockchain analysis. Despite claiming to have trained hundreds even thousands of people at the FBI she revealed that there were actually only four employees in her unit.
The defendant’s lawyer further questioned the agents credibility pointing out that she had no college education in blockchain analysis from A&M or taken any courses on blockchain analysis. In fact her education pre-dates Bitcoin’s existence. He points out that she never testified as an expert in any courtroom. The Chainalysis tool relied upon was developed by a private company and unavailable for peer review. He asks what the training requirements were for her field. To which she responded that there were no training requirements. Rather the program was developed in house and not peer reviewed by any outside agency at all. There was no scientific basis either. However her work was at points double checked by team-mates.
When her work was questioned, she said that while the evidence was originally crafted by the way of a commercial tool she re-created her work utilizing open source software blockchain.info. Humorously this is not an open source program, but rather a website. Within the context of the questioning the lawyer was not asking about “open source tools”, but the ability of outsider expertise to analyze the source code. This so-called expert didn’t even understand the question let alone that the software she was referring was not open source, but rather merely a website open to the public.
When questioned about her colleague double checking her work she responded that errors had been found, but that she couldn’t remember if any errors were found in this particular case. As the testimony continued the blockchain expert gleaned at the prosecutor gesturing for confirmation of her testimony. A regular back and forth of this continued throughout the testimony. Upon follow up questioning by the prosecutor the witness reveals that it’s very easy to make mistakes. In giving an example of a mistake shes made before she humorously even made an unintentional error confusing Bitcoin addresses and amounts thereof.
The defense asks what makes you special, to which the expert witness responds that she doesn’t know that anything makes her special. This is an embarrassing blunder given she indicates that even the defense lawyer could reproduce her work using the same websites she utilized. Obviously- if anyone can do it then one is not an expert.
She testifies that co-spend can link different Bitcoin addresses to a single individual yet fails to grasp that multiple people can control a single private key. While it may generally be correct that one controls a wallet by way of a private key there is nothing that says more than one individual or entity can’t control a private key or wallet.
During the hearing the defense lawyer questions whether or not all work has been provided to the defense team. To which the judge is very concerned. He states he does not want a repeat of the ‘Enron situation’ which was a case where not all the evidence that the defense was entitled to was provided by the prosecution which is required by law for a fair trial to occur. Particularly important is evidence favorable to the defense. He concludes that not all evidence favorable to the defense appears to have been turned over based on the expert witnesses testimony.
The defense reveals that there will be a number of witnesses thus far unknown introduced. One piece of evidence introduced to the docket thus far was a legal opinion from a lawyer advising the Shire Free Church on how to operate and vend cryptocurrency without falling afoul of the registration requirements at the federal level and state level. The prosecutor previously attempted to have this letter excluded from trial by falsely claiming the letter was referencing state law only. While that effort may have failed it is now revealed that not only will the letter be introduced at trial, but so will the attorney that drafted it. Thus removing any question of its authenticity.
The defense will also subpoena New Hampshire’s banking commissioner of whom testified at a state house hearing. The hearing was focused on removing the authority of the banking department to regulate cryptocurrency businesses in New Hampshire. It had previously been granted this authority by accident and had never actually regulated cryptocurrency businesses in the state. The witness will testify to the fact New Hampshire did not regulate the very type of vending the Shire Free Church did. In fact, her example during the state house hearing was specific to the Shire Free Church’s operations and the bill proposed was in direct response to legislators and supporters wanting to protect the Shire Free Church and similarly operated vending operations in New Hampshire.
During the hearing it was also revealed that a key piece of evidence intended to prove a ‘knowingly’ aspect of one of the charges wasn’t directed at the Shire Free Church or Ian Freeman. Nor was this letter sent by certified mail or even the postal service. The letter was sent to numerous operators via email and resembled something akin to spam or a fraud.
One of the defenses arguments appears to be that the vending machines were open and notoriously operated for many years.
Judge’s Conclusion:
There will be no jury nullification argument allowed at trial. This however was never an aspect of the defenses argument, but rather created by the imagination of a prosecutor who is aware of Ian Freeman’s jury nullification outreach. That outreach pertains largely to state courthouses and it’s well known that the federal courts will not entertain such argumentation.
The following evidence will be permitted:
1. Owned and operated vending machines
2. NH stated the church need not be registered under state law
3. Attorney Seth Hipple’s testimony on legalities of vending
4. General intent vs specific intent, intent to cause a particular result is not a defense to federal law
Crimes with general intent involve knowingly committing a criminal act. Specific intent crimes involve knowingly committing the criminal act as well as an intent to cause a particular result by committing the act.
5. The non-expert witness / FBI agent testimony will be allowed, but will not be able to give an opinion that it was Ian Freeman’s wallet, but will allow that inference
It was also revealed that the trial will likely take about two weeks to conclude, and will start on December 6th. However while the trial will start immediately it is likely that the first day of the trial will likely primarily constitute jury selection.
Free Keene already published the damning video showing General Don Bolduc, the republican candidate for US senate in NH, lying to police to have Joa from “Breaking the Flaw” wrongfully arrested. The story and video have gone viral yet right wing publications have largely ignored the truth of the video that proves Joa never touched Bolduc. Meanwhile, Joa has filed complaints against Bolduc with Goffstown police, as Bolduc was the one who committed assault against Joa and then made false reports to police.
Bolduc has continued to lie, even after walking back his claim that he was assaulted.
Now, you can see this longer form video showing various scenes from outside the senate debate at St. Anselm College, including libertarians protesting Jeremy Kauffman being excluded from the debate, but mostly focusing on the entire arrest and subsequent release of Joa:
Should be an interesting case when it goes to trial. Joa’s arraignment is at Goffstown District Court at 8:15am on December 1st.
UPDATE: Joa has released his first-person, unedited video of the whole arrest scene.
NH Republican US Senate candidate General Don Bolduc was caught in another lie tonight. This time, claiming a libertarian activist threw a punch at him outside a debate at St Anselm College in Manchester, NH. Multiple mainstream media sites are touting the campaign’s claim that Bolduc dodged a punch from Joa of “Breaking the Flaw“. (FOX, NYPost, Breitbart, Washington Examiner)
The campaign and Bolduc himself, are lying. Joa never threw a punch nor did he even try to touch Bolduc. He did approach him and yell at him about being a warmonger, that’s it. Bolduc on the other hand immediately pointed Joa out to police, who then took him into custody as Bolduc yelled, “He hit me!” multiple times. The video clearly shows that it was in fact Bolduc who hit Joa, then feigning that he’d been hurt in the same arm with which he hit Joa. Bolduc’s supporters then roughed up Joa even further, but police didn’t arrest any of them. Watch it for yourself:
Though Joa was arrested, he was only charged with “disorderly conduct” and “criminal trespass”. It’s noteworthy that despite Bolduc’s hollering, police did not charge Joa with assault or battery. Perhaps because they too witnessed the incident and know the truth – Bolduc lied.
There is a lot more video from this event, but I wanted to get this part out as soon as possible. Stay tuned to Free Keene for more coverage.
The New Hampshire Independence PAC helped organize a gathering of about 50 people at the Wearehouse last week and featured networking, vendors, as well as multiple speeches from NHIPAC’s Matt Sabourin, Foundation for NH Independence’s Alu Axelman, author Jordan Cannon, Benjamin Shaffer from Goldback, Club 75 Alliance’s Stephen Villee, The John Birch Society’s Matt Rhodes, Jack Shimek of the Pine Tree Radio Society, state rep candidate Jason Gerhard, and Wearehouse founder Brian Becker. This video features all the speeches from the event:
Joa from “Breaking the Flaw” was in Concord last week with me, Bonnie, and Footloose and we went to the state house with cameras rolling. We encountered a rude woman in the Governor’s office, a security agent leveled a false threat against Coconut the dog, and we had a lengthy conversation with a state rep on various issues. Here’s the video:
Arrested for sitting peacefully at an Executive Council meeting in 2021, Frank “Footloose” Staples was back in court Friday for a trial scheduling conference on multiple “disorderly conduct” charges. As previously reported, things are always interesting when Footloose is in court. Here is the full video of the hearing in Concord District Court:
First Amendment Auditor “Press NH Now” aka Marc Manchon was arrested last year in Charlestown, NH as he was live streaming video in the police department. He was charged with “disorderly conduct”, the police’s favorite catch-all charge for people they don’t like, and “obstructing government administration”, because of the alleged actions of his viewers, which were clearly free speech. Hence, after a two hour trial he was found “not guilty” on both counts. Here’s the full trial video:
Manchon had come to Charlestown to pick up a freedom of information request and when he interacted with the police department’s dispatcher, she refused to tell him her name. Manchon suggested people could try to find out her name, and calls began coming in to dispatch from alleged viewers that were trying to get the tax-feeding woman, Sirena Reliham, to simply identify herself, which all government bureaucrats are supposedly required to do by Article 8 of the NH Constitution. When police chief Patrick Connors arrived, rather than acknowledging his employee was out-of-line by keeping her identity a secret, he doubled down and arrested Manchon because people were calling their publicly-listed department number and asking questions, or sharing how they felt about the corruption in the Charlestown police.
“Press NH Now” Supporters in Claremont after trial.
Basically, if the government thugs don’t like why people are calling them, they will call it a crime and make arrests. Thankfully, the robed man in this case, judge Jack Yazinski, despite his clear desire to protect his buddies from accountability, did issue a “not guilty” verdict on both counts, as obviously recording video in a public place and calling a public phone number to speak with so-called “public servants” is not a crime. However, he did take the opportunity to scold Manchon prior to issuing the verdict, telling him that he was “rude and disrespectful” to the bureaucrats while expecting they be respectful to him, and that “the street does go two ways”. Yazinski is wrong – respect is earned. No bureaucrat is deserving of respect simply because they have a badge, fancy hat, or uniform. Further, Ms Reliham didn’t show Manchon the simple respect of giving her name when asked and the entire government system regularly violates people’s rights, throwing innocent people into handcuffs and destroying peaceful people’s lives. They do not respect us. They rule us, while laughably calling themselves “servants”.
Kudos to Manchon for refusing to take a plea deal and going to trial. His activism is exemplary and you can follow his channel here. For full video background on the Charlestown situation, see his playlist here.
Moving the New Hampshire renaissance forward: Should we do something Medici Florence did?
Image: Petar Miloševi? Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0
Most New Hampshire independence activists are libertarians, and most seem to favor adopting a neutral foreign policy similar to that of 20th Century Switzerland. What is something we can do *now* to create more buzz and pull the state in that direction? By “we,” in this context I don’t mean the unwieldy NH government. Rather, the question is “what is something just a dozen or so New Hampshire activists could do to enhance the prospect of eventual neutrality? How do we immediately start “acting like a nation-state?” And what is within our power along these lines?
Here’s the best thing I could think of this week, based on historical precedent. Around the year 1500, one tiny nation led Europe out of the Dark Ages with a scientific and cultural Renaissance that shook the globe: It was the city-state of Florence in Italy. But as the arts and sciences leapt forward over the following centuries…politics in the West “advanced” much more slowly. You could argue that, politically, humanity is still almost in the Dark Ages. Sometimes civic transparency or liberty moves forward, sometimes backward…but things are not obviously better for liberty than they were a century ago.
As in the 1500 era, one tiny state has stepped forward to try and change this and create a renaissance. But this time it is a civic renaissance which we hope will compliment and enhance the world’s art and tech advances. Through its existing, relatively inclusive system…New Hampshire has become one of the freest places in the world and pro-liberty activists from around the planet have already migrated here by thousands. Meanwhile, the state has reduced its budgets in a time of double-digit inflation and become (or at least remained) the safest and most prosperous place in America. Next, liberty activists envision a gradual (sometimes interrupted) trend toward transparency, lower taxes and slow decentralization of power in the New Hampshire governing system. That is our careful renaissance.
During the 16th Century, Medici rulers in Florence invited governments from as far away as India to join in a great celebration of *their* Renaissance. What if we were to do something similar for *ours?* The Medici showcased the spectacular architecture and inventions they had commissioned, but what do we have to showcase? The answer is probably “Porcupine Festival with bus tours.”
PorcFest is an annual camping event which offers a perfect view of New Hampshire’s comely White Mountains but also the option of staying in motels. It’s usually sold out, and attendance tends to be around 3,000. Sometimes called “the libertarian Burning Man,” PorcFest showcases freedom itself: In contrast with the Nevada festival, government police are almost never present, drugs, guns and illegal commerce are welcome, assault rifles openly displayed. Depending on the year you can usually find devout Muslims and Israeli expats, Satanists and Christian Evangelicals, Ukrainians and Russians…all attending contentedly side by side. Housewives deliver unlicensed haircuts and live-stream the crime; children sell alcohol, illegal gambling tables spring up seemingly at random, and (late bloomer of the 20-year-old event) safely-practiced prostitution is reportedly easing its way into the mix.
Like the Woodstock festival of 1969, PorcFest has a ridiculously low incidence of harmful crime. Surely I’m missing something, but the worst event I can think of was a drunk driver who hurt no one and quickly generated a successful response from private security and our media outlets.
Forty-two percent of New Hampshirites favor a referendum on leaving the Union, according to SurveyUSA’s poll in mid-2022. And a Estonian-style “declaration of independence” went before the full NH State House the same year. But at PorcFest the numbers are much higher than 42 percent; the event usually includes a secession conference with regular appearances and visits by independence leaders from across the continent.
What if, like old Florence, we were to boost our status by sending PorcFest-secession-conference invitations to every national government in the world? Of course, attendees could also enjoy the weeklong event and join bus tours to other parts of the state.
The mere act of evenhandedly sending these invitations would be a tentative deed of neutrality. It would mean reaching out to Iran, North Korea and the Taliban (much as Ron Paul envisioned) while also requesting the presence of U.S. allies. It would be a chance for estranged nations to interact with these United States in a different way from “John Bolton.” It might “be the change we want to see in the world,” altering the current tone of international relations a bit with its re-introduction of Swiss-style neutrality. Unlike the Medici in Florence, we Ron Paul types don’t fully govern New Hampshire. But we do constitute a powerful faction here, and if the trend continues….we will eventually be the government here. Like the Medici before they fully achieved power in Florence, New Hampshire independence activists and libertarians may be group of people you want to know if you’re a foreign diplomat.
My brainstorm would be that for PorcFest 2023 we could email every national government in the world with such an invitation. For redundancy we would want to aim the invite at two different email addresses for each nation, and we would need to define what constitutes a national government. My tentative suggestion would be to include any national government that currently is recognized as such by at least one “UN member state.” For example this would include Kosovo in former Yugoslavia (U.S.-recognized but controversial) and Donetsk near the Russia-Ukraine border (Russia-recognized but also controversial). The list probably would not currently include ISIS diplomats, since it appears the group is not recognized by any UN member state. It would presumably include them in the future if that changes, and in the unlikely event they actually made it to New Hampshire we would have our chance to raise concerns about their behavior and show them a different path.
Although it would be tempting to send invitations in the native language of each recipient, this probably could not be done for all nations at this early stage. All the invitations would probably need to go out in English so that each nation is treated as equally as possible.
Disadvantages of this “invitation plan.”
1) There’s no way to guarantee the good behavior of any visitor to PorcFest. If we were to invite someone and they did something bad while in the U.S., that could be used as an excuse to harm NH liberty. Or there could be Washington-backed trickery.
2) Beijing, if it paid attention at all, would view this obviously neutral act as a provocation. Taiwan is recognized by some UN member states and would, like the CCP, need to be invited. Beijing hates anything that looks like recognizing Taiwan. But ultimately that is on Beijing. The Swiss did things that Germany viewed as provocations in 1940, but Switzerland needed to do them to remain neutral. Beijing could alternately see this invitation as an opportunity to peaceably tweak Washington’s nose. The neutrality of the porcupine has charms to match its quills.
3) The invitations might all be ignored; perhaps we are not big enough yet.
4) We’re diplomatic beginners and would make diplomatic mistakes. But that very process should make us better prepared for independence. Any Slovenian will probably tell you how important that is and how much “not being ready” cost them in ’91.
5) D.C. would perhaps try to block some nations from sending representatives…but this is likely more of an advantage than a problem. When D.C. uses its power, it usually gets weaker…and we get the publicity we seek. The lapdog presstitutes can be relied on to whine that we are being too evenhanded with some cleric at Tehran. Blocked passports might still let us have a publicity stunt on the Canadian border or in international waters…”North Korean diplomat meets U.S. dissidents off coast of restless New England province.”
6) As I understand it: During the War of 1812, New England representatives pushed for independence and met with the otherwise hostile British government. This perceived “separate peace” approach was considered backstabbing by some and is thought to have contributed to the demise of the Federalist faction in America. The groups which replaced it were arguably more authoritarian. By implementing the invitation plan….would we be making the same “mistake” in the same place?
7) Some effort might be required to determine whether outreach of this type is lawful. It seems unlikely that there is a law against individuals openly communicating with a foreign government, but if there is…it would be an opportunity for civil disobedience in front of a Federal compound. It would create both dangers and benefits which would have to be weighed before deciding what to do.
8) We’d need to invite U.S. diplomats, which would give them an excuse to legitimately be there. But D.C. is probably there anyway.
At present the main obstacle to carrying out the invitation plan is a logistical one. I don’t see myself being able to send out 500-odd invitations and perform follow-up activities by myself. Probably it would require about five of us to get started. So: I’m requesting four volunteers…regardless of your location. If they are forthcoming before November 1, 2022 (and there are no compelling arguments against this plan) we can start moving forward. If sufficient volunteers fail to materialize, that means this scheme is premature or flawed in some way. It would probably go back-burner for for a while. If you’d like to participate, respond in the comments section below…here at FreeKeene.com. No registration is required.
Dave Ridley
NHexit.com
Listening to a Marcus Ruis Evans Calexit discussion gave me an idea. If you don’t like the idea (and in some ways I don’t)…it may give you a better idea. Spell it out! Anyway, Evans was talking about how California was pursing its own foreign policy in some ways.
What if , instead of creating a bill that tries to make NH independent across the board…we had legislation that built just one piece of independence infrastructure? For example… what if NH created its own (unpaid) ambassador to the U.N.? This could be an elected statewide position. Historically, NH governors have sometimes acted to undermine Washington’s authority (Lynch vs. Real ID, Sununu vs. Fed gun laws). So it’s not wildly speculative to imagine an NH ambassador articulating some independent foreign policy or questioning UN/US actions at NYC. They might be blown off by the UN establishment, but probably some nations get tired of the answers they receive from D.C.’s UN ambassador. They might like the chance to approach a different UN ambassador from America. This would undermine D.C’s bloodthirsty authority. It might also be an opportunity for NH to take a foreign policy line which makes it less hated by the world than Washington is. There is an historical precedent there too…in 1999 Montenegro (while still part of Yugoslavia) was able to use its dissenting foreign policy and independence drive for the purpose of pressuring D.C. not to bomb it. D.C. was bombing neighboring Serbia at the time and did bomb the Montenegrins, but it bought the Yugo-province good press and may have saved some lives.
There is a problem that some nations have when they are first created… “para-statism.” They become a para-state…independent sort of but not recognized by the UN or a sufficient number of other nations. Examples include Kosovo or (as of September 2022) parts of eastern Ukraine. Having our own UN ambassador earlier than usual might help head off this problem. Would she also perhaps be the only elected ambassador there…and would this perhaps draw positive attention to her?
One downside here is that the actions of such an ambassador now could taint NH efforts at neutrality later. This wouldn’t be a person like you and me. At first it would likely be more of a Chris Sununu or John Lynch…in other words a politician too close to Washington. But creating this position would probably make NH more of a nation than she is today and making it an elected position should further disperse power at Concord.
The point here is not so much to push this specific idea but rather the idea of legislation which would give us some trapping or capability which is associated with independence. As with all legislation, this should be done in some way that does not cost taxpayers anything.
What are other options along these lines? What else does Switzerland or Costa Rica have which we lack?
How about our own official currency? Our own one-woman state department? Our own Herbert Hoover 1915? Hoover used his official neutral status to coordinate Belgium relief during the German occupation. What if we had our own Raoul Wallenberg type position? A Swedish businessman/diplomat…Wallenberg toured Nazi-controlled areas with Berlin’s agreement and also was able to save lives.
These are the only liberty-friendly options I can think of. What are other things people think we need but which we would lose by leaving the empire? If legislators refused to create such a position… is there some smaller NH entity or faction which might? How about an NH GOP representative to the UN? Or an NHLA ambassador there?
Dave Ridley
NHexit.com
….but he still beats the independence-friendly candidate at Winchester.
Video: https://odysee.com/@RidleyReport:b/3400.11d:c
Image below is thumbnail only.
This weekend, on 9/11, the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire organized a rally in front of the State House in Concord, to support the “Defend the Guard” legislation. Defend the Guard, if passed, would prohibit New Hampshire’s National Guard from being deployed to active combat without a formal declaration of war by Congress.
Multiple people spoke at the rally, which was attended by over 40 people, including veterans Derek Proulx, Ben Weir and Justin O’Donnell. Plus, Foundation for NH Independence President Alu Axelman, Naturalist Capitalist host Reed Coverdale, and LPNH candidate for US Senate Jeremy Kauffman also spoke. Here are all their speeches:
NRA’s Rating for NH Senate District 10 Candidates
I’m happy to announce that in my campaign running as a republican for NH Senate District 10, I have received the top rating of “A” from both the New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and the NRA, having bested my republican primary opponent, Sly Karasinski, who only scored a “B” from both organizations. The democrats in the race did much worse. The NRA’s rating includes the letter “Q”, and the NHFC’s rating includes the letter “S”, both of which mean that all they have to go on is my responses to their questionnaires, as I have no voting record, having not yet held office.
In addition to my top ratings from the gun rights groups, I also received the endorsement from the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, which sends questionnaires out to all candidates as well as scoring existing state reps and senators on whether or not they vote for liberty. They do great work.
Finally, I received 85 out of 100 from Granite State Taxpayers. My opponents did not bother to respond to their survey. The 85 is due to two “missed” questions, neither of which had to do with taxes. One was, “Will you support limiting voting to persons who have been New Hampshire residents for at least 30 days?” – I said “no”. The other was, “Will you oppose casino gambling?”, to which I said “no”. I do oppose gambling monopolies, but as a supporter of freedom, I think gambling should be legal, untaxed, and unregulated, just like every business should be. Neither issue I “missed” on GST’s questionnaire has anything to do with taxes, so I’m not sure why GST was asking about them. Here is a link to their full database showing all candidates’ responses.
New Hampshire Firearms Coalition’s Ratings for NH Senate District 10
If you’d like more information about me and my pro-freedom positions on the issues, you can visit my official campaign page here and also my Citizens Count NH page has many issues where I was able to submit custom responses. Here’s more from Vote Smart’s Political Courage Test. Finally, here is a link to my Ballotpedia profile.
This year’s race for District 10 is wide-open as the current senator, democrat Jay Kahn, is not running for re-election. The newly re-mapped NH Senate District 10 includes Alstead, Chesterfield, Dublin, Hancock, Harrisville, Keene, Marlborough, Nelson, Peterborough, Roxbury, Sullivan, Surry, Swanzey, Walpole, and Westmoreland. If you are in those towns and are an undeclared voter or a registered republican, you can vote for me on September 13th at the primary election. You can also register at the polls the same day, if you are not yet registered to vote. Undeclared voters can declare as republican, receive the republican ballot, then undeclare again before you leave the polls.
Jazzy, Renee, Andy, Ian @ Forkfest 2020
In the last week, Renee and Andy Spinella were sentenced for their victimless “crimes” in the Crypto Six case. This spring, the two agreed to plead guilty to a single count of “wire fraud” for saying something to a bank that was allegedly not the whole truth. As prosecutors admitted at Renee’s sentencing, there were no damages to the “victims” in this case, a list of several banks and credit unions. No restitution is owed to them by either of the Spinellas or Nobody – who was sentenced last month on his plea deal – because well, the banks weren’t actually defrauded.
Renee was sentenced last week to $2100 in fines and fees and three years on probation and Andy was sentenced today to $600 in fines and fees and 18 months on probation. On its own, the sentence doesn’t seem too bad, until you remember that it includes a federal felony conviction that will stay with them their entire lives unless the president pardons them.
Banks can lie to you with no penalty, but the federal government goons’ position is that if you say anything to the banks that isn’t the entire truth, even with no intention to defraud, that you should have your home violently raided, then face up to 30 years in prison for every statement you made that they didn’t like. Not even a federal perjury charge is as serious as “wire fraud” as perjury can only be sentenced up to five years in prison.
The fact that none of the “victims” were damaged in any way was of no consequence, because the prosecutors just want to get more convictions on their record so they can move up the political chain by crushing innocent lives beneath them. Now Andy and Renee can no longer carry guns and anyone who checks their records and doesn’t bother to ask them about the “wire fraud” conviction might mistakenly believe the two are dishonest fraudsters, and nothing could be further from the truth.
They are two honest, good people who only took plea deals because the prosecutors were threatening them with more victimless charges and, like most people facing federal prosecution, they just wanted it to be over. I don’t blame them for doing what they considered best, but now that they are sentenced, Nobody is sentenced, and Colleen’s charges were dropped, it’s just me and Aria left to go to trial. We think a jury with a shred of decency will find us not guilty of all the bullshit “crimes” against us. In the event of such a decision, I would be relieved, but not happy, because my friends did not deserve what happened to them – the feds used them as stepping stones to get to me. No victim, no crime.
The next step in the “Crypto Duo” trial is Thursday September 1st at 9:30am in federal court church in Concord, where the judge will hear arguments on a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges.
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:
NH Jury Rights
The motions and objections in the Crypto Six case are starting to fly back-and-forth. Recently, the defense attorneys for me and Aria DiMezzo filed a “Notice of Public Authority Defense“, saying that we had relied on a legal memo from attorney Seth Hipple that cites the New Hampshire Banking Commission stating that they don’t regulate person-to-person cryptocurrency sales. Today, the dishonest federal prosecutors filed an objection to that and a motion to exclude the evidence, arguing that the statements of the NH Banking Commission are irrelevant to the case, since the charges are federal.
Though their primary argument is that the NH Banking Commission’s opinion is irrelevant, they later admit their real fear is the jury might nullify the charges if they knew the actions are legal in New Hampshire:
Alternatively, if the evidence is relevant, it should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403, because its introduction would be unduly prejudicial to the government and invite jury nullification.
Jury Nullification is your right to judge the law itself, instead of the facts in the case. Nullification is an established right of jurors that governments across the United States, especially in federal courts, attempt to suppress. It’s no surprise that the prosecutors are worried about it here, as Aria and I certainly did no harm to any other soul and a jury who knows they are free to use their conscience to render a verdict, may very well throw out the entire case.
The next step in the trial is Thursday September 1st at 10am in federal court church in Concord, where multiple motions will get hearings, including a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges and a very interesting motion arguing the government should be prevented from introducing blockchain analysis expert testimony as their methods cannot pass the scrutiny required to be admitted as evidence in a case.
WKBK‘s morning show host Dan Mitchell had me on today to discuss my run for NH State Senate, third parties, secession, guns and more! If you’re in the Keene region, you can vote for me in the Republican primary on September 13th.
Free Talk Live · WKBK's Dan Mitchell Interviews Ian Freeman
