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:

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

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

Karen Sue Steele, Hates Independence, Originally from MN.

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

Karen’s email to the Commission says:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I was honored to be able to speak in front of an audience of over 130 freedom-loving people from across New Hampshire this Friday evening at the “We the People NH” event focusing on more liberty-friendly candidates. Since I am a candidate for NH Senate District 10, organizer Terese Grinnell invited me to speak and my focus was to discuss NH Independence. I told the crowd about the exciting poll results that came out recently showing nearly 1 in 3 NH people already support NH being its own country – and 52% of Republicans.

You can get all the details on the poll from this article at NHexit.US where the full results from Survey USA are linked.

I wasn’t sure what the audience’s response would be but I got a lot of applause and nearly everyone to whom I offered a Foundation for NH Independence flyer during the breaks, accepted it. The event was a major success. There is wide interest in independence for New Hampshire from the evil Federal Gang.  Here’s the full speech and organizer Terese Grinnell’s comments afterward:

Nobody

In a recent post here at Free Keene, Chris Waid presented his notes from the sentencing hearing for Nobody as a, “Big win for Mr. Nobody“. This is ridiculous spin. For those who didn’t hear the news, my co-defendant Nobody was recently sentenced to “time served” of approximately six months in jail as well as $2,100 in fines and fees, a forfeiture of $10,000, and two years’ probation. He had taken a plea to one count of “wire fraud”, despite not having defrauded anyone. Like the other Crypto Six defendants, he was intimidated into a plea deal by the threat of further charges.

Whether or not he took the plea and even if he went to trial and “won” on every count – as Aria and I are hoping to do – it would not be a “win”. As Mark Stevens put it in his book, “Adventures in Legal Land“, whenever you are targeted by the state, it is a loss. Even if you “win” and defeat the charges, you still lose your time. You still lose your ability to focus on things that are actually important to you instead of focusing on a criminal trial and the stress of bail conditions and the government’s axe hanging over your head.  Basically, when they bring charges against you, you are going to lose – the only question is how much?

In Nobody’s case, he went through a horribly and unnecessarily violent pre-dawn raid on his home, spent several months behind bars, most of a year on restrictive bail conditions, and now is having his personal finances decimated. He has nearly nothing left after paying their extractions, is now a federal felon for life, and is still under multiple probation restrictions for two years.  All of this damage has been brought upon him simply because, as he described it, he was convicted of, “contempt of bank”.  It’s great that he doesn’t have to go back to prison, but this is not a win.

In other Crypto Six news, the remaining two defendants, Aria DiMezzo and me, have had motions filed by our defense attorneys, including a motion to dismiss the “money transmitter” charges, a motion to block the prosecution from using blockchain analysis experts, and a notice of a “public authority defense”.  The hearing on these motions is set for September 1st at 9:30am at Concord Federal District Court Church.

On Thursday July 28th judge Joseph N. Laplante concluded the sentencing hearing for Crypto6’s Mr Nobody with a ruling to the maximum degree possible in his favor, and below is a run down of the defenses, prosecutors, and judges thoughts and arguments.

For more detail of what happened and a bit of a backstory on the sentencing check out Freedom Decrypted episode 170 where we covered the pre-sentencing motions that went into the variance granted (or in other words the request to reduce the sentence below that typically authorized by the sentencing guidelines).

The notes from the sentencing hearing are as follows:

– Mr Nobody is pleading guilty to a single count of wire fraud

Judge opens with a speech on the sentencing guidelines being the guiding force behind determining the sentence, but are not a hard rule to be followed, and he can sentence Mr Nobody outside of the guidelines.

There is a sealed pre-sentencing report that was created by the court of which came to 26 pages in length. Unfortunately due to certain information contained within it is sealed, but this is for Mr Nobody’s benefit and it may be that this report can be released by him and/or released by him with appropriate sections redacted. While this may not be relevant to Mr Nobody’s sentencing report the type of information that can be included includes information such as histories of mental illness that would be inappropriate to release to the public. Our opportunity as the public therefore to be outraged by the malicious, manipulative, or outright lies contained in it must therefore be reserved till a later date.

Possible outcome based on sentencing guidelines and guilty plea:

The guidelines recommend:

– 10 to 16 months imprisonment

– 2 to 5 years of supervised release

– A fine of $2,000 to $1 million dollars

The judge noted that there was no request by the defendant for a departure from the guidelines. However the defence requested a variance from the guidelines which is a little different. At this point Nobody’s lawyer Anessa Allen Santos requested the guidelines be dropped.

Anessa Allen Santos’s argument as to why the guidelines should be dropped:

– the regulatory framework for crypto is evolving and this speaks to the nature of the offence

– there are more than 4 different agencies providing differing and conflicting sets of rules and decisions

– there is confusion amongst federal agencies as to whether crypto is a security or a commodity

– it has shifted from being a medium of exchange to a commodity and now to a currency

– bitcoin is now being called a currency by federal regulators

– Mr. Nobody took extra steps to be compliant with the law including getting legal opinions from regulators and lawyers

– While Nobody may have lied to a bank he was under the impression that the bank was asking about his business for its personal benefit in order to stamp out the competition that is bitcoin and he believed they had no right to inquire

– Simply put there was never any malice in any actions for which he is accused

– The federal framework differs from the state

– Mr Nobody obeyed pre-trail release conditions in spite of the governments claims that he was a violent threat to law enforcement

– 3 points in regard to prior convictions

1. His prior convictions revolve around weed
2. The laws on weed have dramatically changed
3. The totality of the circumstances

Basically if he was sentenced today the outcome would be different and this means there is justification for reducing the points in the sentencing guidelines by 3. This would reduce the time he should serve by 2 to 6 months.

Judge Responds

The judge at this point says Mr Nobody’s conduct does not evidence a lack of respect for the law and he clearly took measures to be legally compliant.

The judge asks questions to determine whether or not Mr Nobody would be harmed by further cage time and wants to know how his client is living.

The defendent isn’t quite following the nature of the question however and responds with:

– He’s a computer programmer
– He gets by off donations
– He would be harmed if he couldn’t work, and he can’t program if dead
– The nature of his work is open source

The judge responds clarifying whether or not cage time would be disruptive to livelihood:

– Mr Nobody clarifies that he was a well renowned programmer who had previously worked for citi bank, and his current efforts are in some respect necessary to show that after a decade of activism he’s still a capable programmer

The judge asks about his sources of income and the defence responds with:

– cell411
– p2p crypto

The judge returns with: The question he really wants to know is can Mr Nobody support himself.

The answer to this is that pulling him out of the marketplace would make it more difficult for him to support himself. Currently he has a community upon which he has relied to get him through these trying times, and should he be sentenced to further jail time he would likely lose that and face further hardships.

Prosecutor responds and makes the following point:

– This is a strict liability law implying whether he intended to break the law or not is irrelevant

The prosecutor goes on to defend the law and it’s reason for existing for which he has plead guilty and claims without any evidence that they “advertised to scammers”.

The prosecutor goes on to talk about the proffer. A proffer is a mechanism to offer or present evidence at trial for immediate acceptance or rejection.

Basically what the prosecutor is saying is that when Nobody was presented with the evidence of scammers utilizing the purchased crypto he was not OK with that.

At this point the judge starts talking about the amounts of money that went through “Ian’s business” completely leaving out it was the Shire Free Church’s business. None the less he says that of the 23 million 2 million of this was through Mr Nobody’s bank account(s).

In regard to the money judgement

The defence responds to arguments pertaining to prior motions filed by the prosecutor concerning sentencing where the prosecution falsely claimed that the “business” was charging excessive fees at “ATMs” and this is somehow evidence of malice.

In fact Anessa Allen Santos’s states this is a malicious attempt at confusing the court as the fees were in line with equivalent vending machines and neither ripped off customers nor were a premium of any kind. Online exchanges don’t have the same costs as vending machine operators who must rent space and provide a different kind of service.

Nobody speaks about his intent:

Nobody says he worked inside of the banking system and from his first hand experience saw how it was setup to create two classes of people. The reason he got into selling crypto was because he saw how it could free people from the need to seek permission of government. No longer would you need a million dollars in order to get in on the market. There is something called a “qualified investor” and unless you are a qualified investor you can’t partake in the market. Nobody was trying to protect those who he sees as being robbed by the dollar’s decline in value. By comparison the wealthy classes were able to float on their investments and assets that went up with inflation whereas everyone else lost out.

He went on to say the poor are victims of the federal reserve banking system.

Judge asks what changed your mind about the crypto sales:

He said that the thing that changed his heart (in regard to the proffer) were that some people were hurt by third parties.

Nobody goes on to say that “our side” or that he and his co-defendants would never have knowingly taken proceeds from victims who were being defrauded.

He also pointed out that he didn’t do customer service and wouldn’t have known if someone was being defrauded in the first place. He simply couldn’t have known what was going on even if Ian had been taking proceeds of victims of fraud.

The judge asks some questions about how Mr Nobody came to be a computer programmer:

Nobody responds that he was self taught, but also got certifications in college.

The judge also wants to know how he ended up in New Hampshire. To which Mr Nobody responds that he moved for the Free State Project which is a migration of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire to further the cause of liberty in our life time.

Judges Ruling:

Judge says he’s going to sentence Mr Nobody to time served.

The judge believes that 5 ½ months is not a small thing and is the “right sentence”.

The judge gives an opinion that the “record overstates danger” of Mr Nobody and he does not want to cause problems for Mr Nobody due to a tough economy. He thinks Mr Nobody can support himself and if he didn’t do this there would be a risk of Mr Nobody getting COVID. Undermining Mr. Nobody’s ability to feed and house himself and the combination of the circumstances lead him to believe it would not be in the public’s interest to sentence him to further cage time. However a couple of years of supervised release is appropriate alongside some conditions.

The judge also said his only real request is that Mr Nobody not test the permissible bounds of his conditional release which will include:

– 2 Years of supervised release

– Report to probation today

Conditions:

– No lawbreaking

– No illegal substances

– 3 drug tests

– Provide a DNA sample

– Submit to substance abuse treatment

– Pay for cost of testing should he be so able

– Provide access to financial info

– Not open any credit lines without approval from probation

– Submit to search by probation (if suspicion of violation occurs)

– $100 (court costs?)

– Pay a $2,000 fine

The prosecutor then asks the court to grant a forfeiture.

Note: There is also a forfeiture order of ~$10k not mentioned which appears to have been agreed to by the defendant. Which is a bit alarming given the millions of dollars spent by the government to prosecute an individual the government and courts knew full well and was concerned of being indigent (or in other words lacking even the most minimal financial resources to sustain themselves).