Mail-to-Jail May Be Dead, But Activism Is Alive And Well In New Hampshire: Writing To Caged Activists

Update as of July 8th, 2021: Ian Freeman has been released. Nobody, formally Rich Paul, is still in a cage at the address below and is awaiting a hearing from a judge on being released. Please continue to write to him at this address.

Bitcoin Pizza Day 2019

Crypto users gathered at Little Zoe’s Pizza in Keene for Bitcoin Pizza Day 2019.

First of all, if you haven’t seen the raid videos from March 16th, 2021 where the FBI raided the Liberty Radio Network studio, Free Talk Live, the Bitcoin Embassy, & the Mighty Moose Mart check that out first, and then come back here when your done.

If you have it’s time to start writing. Your friends and fellow activists need you and your support during this troubling time. Oppressive thugs collectively identifying themselves as the state (federal government) have decided to take it upon themselves to use the violence of the state to achieve social and political goals that are directly diametrical to the values our community hold dear.

The state has kidnapped and caged members of our community. People who have been working for peace for years and turning this community into what it has become. The FBI and a half dozen other federal and local agencies raided and arrested our friends over the semblance of Bitcoin being illegal. In March our friends were arrested and two have been denied bail or otherwise not received bail hearings.

On March 16, 2016 Ian Freeman, Nobody (formally known as Rich Paul), Aria DiMezzo (released), Colleen Fordham (released), Renee Spinella (released), and Andrew Spinella (released) were arrested over their use of Bitcoin.

As insane as it might sound for a man looking forward to his day in court after more than 5 years of spreading the message of crypto a magistrate judge ruled on March 29th that Ian Freeman posed a flight risk and lacked ties to the community. On that notion she ruled he would remain behind bars until the conclusion of the trial.

In the case of Nobody there is still a chance of release, but efforts to obtain a proper lawyer have been slow. Between the need to raise over $200,000 (initial amount needed to get started) and numerous members of our community coming down sick this past week or so these particular things have been very slow to materialize. The good news is that 4 out of the crypto 6 have obtained lawyers. While we work to retain lawyers for everybody else (see TheCrypto6.com to help with the fundraising effort) these guys would love to hear from you.

Currently Ian Freeman and Nobody are being held at the Merrimack County jail. Each is being held separately and what one receives or is aware of the other may not be. So please do write to each individually and let them how much you value their commitment to peace and liberty.

Mailing address:

[inmates’s name]
314 Daniel Webster Hwy
Boscawen, NH 03303

No inmate number is required, just the inmates name (Nobody and Ian Freeman) at the jail’s address. Things to note: No crayon, altered paper, laminated paper, polaroids, staples, or paper clips are allowed and your mail may get rejected if any of this is true. We recommend typing your letter or writing with a black or blue pen to avoid having your mail being returned. What constitutes crayon may include colored pencil.

Be sure to number your correspondence with “Letter number #” at the top of each page as well as page # like this “Letter number 2 Page 3 of 6” so that the person you are writing to knows what order letters came in and for that matter if a letter or page doesn’t arrive in tact.

As always, assume that everything is going to be read, not all your mail may get received, and any response may not get returned to you.

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


88 Comments

  1. i was just going to say: the first fbi raid, years ago, didn’t find anything.. and it wasn’t made right.. who was in the wrong on that one, when they didn’t charge anyone

  2. “That’s how the fourth amendment is written. The prosecution is required to show probable cause to the judge, and they did in this case. Therefore, the arrest and seizure of property is valid until the court proceedings conclude in one way or another. What is your interpretation of how this is supposed to work?”

    What the judge declares is probable cause isn’t exactly the same probable cause required by the Constitution.

    Probable cause would be a truly neutral judge seeing the FBI has a history of inflating charges and making false statements under oath, and knowing this, not basing the ruling almost solely upon their testimony anymore.

  3. “the concept of property forfeiture makes sense.”

    Until you dig a little deeper and you find that assets seized by state and federal law enforcement are typically never returned even if there is no conviction, and the sum of which surpasses even that of all home burglaries.

    Tell me again what the Fourth Amendment protects us from?

  4. “What the judge declares is probable cause isn’t exactly the same probable cause required by the Constitution.”

    And what are you basing that opinion on? Do you have any legal reasoning or case law citations, or is it just the way you want it to be?

    “Probable cause would be a truly neutral judge seeing the FBI has a history of inflating charges and making false statements under oath, and knowing this, not basing the ruling almost solely upon their testimony anymore.”

    I’m skeptical that this statement is true. Even so, I’m not sure that the judge was making their decision solely on the testimony of the FBI, but rather the evidence submitted by the FBI. There really is a difference.

    How would it work in your world anyway? So if the executive government makes repeated mistakes and then they can’t enforce the law anymore? Would they have to disband the FBI and reform another investigatory agency every time they botch a case? That sounds ridiculous.

  5. “Until you dig a little deeper and you find that assets seized by state and federal law enforcement are typically never returned even if there is no conviction, and the sum of which surpasses even that of all home burglaries.

    Tell me again what the Fourth Amendment protects us from?”

    Okay, I guess we need to back up: are we talking about civil forfeiture or criminal forfeiture?

    I’m not going to try to defend civil forfeiture, other than to say it makes sense in select situations. If you are mostly talking about civil forfeiture, then I will agree that it is an aspect of the law that needs serious reform.

    Criminal forfeiture, which I believe applies to Ian et al, is a different beast entirely. I would like to see what evidence you have that assets seized under criminal forfeiture weren’t returned after a not guilty verdict. I bet your statistic is referring to civil forfeiture, not criminal.

  6. “And what are you basing that opinion on? Do you have any legal reasoning or case law citations, or is it just the way you want it to be?”

    Logic. No one would have risked their lives or fought a war for the system we have now, because frankly we already had it under the monarch.

    “How would it work in your world anyway? So if the executive government makes repeated mistakes and then they can’t enforce the law anymore? Would they have to disband the FBI and reform another investigatory agency every time they botch a case? That sounds ridiculous.”

    Disband the FBI or keep putting the innocent/victimless criminals in a cage… Let’s see, how much time can I have to answer?

  7. “Logic. No one would have risked their lives or fought a war for the system we have now, because frankly we already had it under the monarch.”

    So it’s just the way you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, the judicial branch disagrees, and they are the final authority on how the Constitution is interpreted.

    “Disband the FBI or keep putting the innocent/victimless criminals in a cage… Let’s see, how much time can I have to answer?”

    I know you actually don’t want the government to have any enforcement power, but then why do you keep referring to the Constitution like a source of authority?

    I would be curious to see your alternative for law enforcement that isn’t just people magically not committing crimes.

  8. “So it’s just the way you want it to be. Unfortunately for you, the judicial branch disagrees, and they are the final authority on how the Constitution is interpreted.”

    And unfortunately for them, the Constitution has meaning beyond whatever they say it means.

    “I know you actually don’t want the government to have any enforcement power, but then why do you keep referring to the Constitution like a source of authority?”

    Because the Constitution is meant to limit enforcement power?

    “I would be curious to see your alternative for law enforcement that isn’t just people magically not committing crimes.”

    How about one where the law enforcers aren’t the biggest criminals?

  9. “And unfortunately for them, the Constitution has meaning beyond whatever they say it means.”

    Clearly, it doesn’t.

    You can believe otherwise all you want, but when rubber meets the road, what they say matters, and what you say does not.

    “Because the Constitution is meant to limit enforcement power?”

    Partially, but it would be more accurate to say that the Constitution lays out the scope of governmental duties and powers, which includes arresting people and seizing assets of suspected criminals.

    “How about one where the law enforcers aren’t the biggest criminals?”

    Citation needed. Also, this answer doesn’t really explain an alternative system.

  10. “You can believe otherwise all you want, but when rubber meets the road, what they say matters, and what you say does not.”

    What I say does matter. I have a voice, and like it or not, unalienable rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. By the way, those exist regardless of whether odd men in funny costumes say they do or not.

  11. “What I say does matter. I have a voice, and like it or not, unalienable rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. By the way, those exist regardless of whether odd men in funny costumes say they do or not.”

    If you say so. If you break the law, you’re going to jail, no matter what you say.

  12. I should be good for now. I don’t own and operate a bitcoin ATM.

  13. Now I know why this conversation seems so familar.

    “‘How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?’
    ‘Four’
    ‘And if the party says there are not four, but five, then how many?'”

    https://youtu.be/rJz77y4d_JA

    Can you guess which character you remind me of, gz?

  14. i wish Ian could respond about the returning of items by the fbl
    there was computer stuff which wasn’t outdated when taken.. then five years later or however long it was
    i think they were going to return it.
    that isn’t making it right
    that isn’t returning things to before the fbi broke into their house and took it.
    pretty sure the wasn’t a apology.
    what’s that legal word…. Restitution!
    there wasn’t restitution

  15. how do you make someone right when you’ve slandered them with the worst slander that could be applied, that of a pedophile.
    How do you fix that for that person in that town.
    well they didn’t fix it and they didn’t even try to fix it and there was no apology and there was no real effort at restitution .
    it’s all chronicled here in freekeene
    if someone wants to dig for it

  16. “I think the constitution often doesn’t say what people thinks it says. Also, it is a very broad satellite view of how the government works. The specifics of how the federal government runs are fleshed out in documents such as the United States Codes as well as the precedents set by the judicial system.”

    It would be more accurate to say the Constitution says whatever federal authorities say it means, gz. This is in spite of the fact that it was written in plain language. But I get it. Living, breathing document and such. Cue Brooklyn Bridge joke.

    “The Constitution, and even the preceding common law, has never required a conviction prior to arrest and seizure of assets. How would that even work?”

    Uh huh. Thing is, I wasn’t making that argument, gz. As far as the Constitution goes, any property seized has to be done so under warrant and only with probable cause. In RICO cases, ALL assets are frozen, even those tied indirectly with a defendant at the time of indictment. See how that could be a violation of the rights of the accused? Just kidding, You’ve already admitted that you don’t care about any of that.

    “You don’t have to steal money to have illicit gains. Off of the top of my head, selling snake oil, usury, charging higher fees than allowed by regulatory bodies, and taking a cut of illegal goods or services to make transaction seem legitimate (aka money laundering) all count.”

    Geez. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with all of this. Although I did like how you threw in the word “usury.” Nice oldy-sounding term. Kind of like something a Jesuit zealot from the 16th century would say.

    “If you say so. If you break the law, you’re going to jail, no matter what you say.”

    This comment wasn’t directed at me, but it’s clear you’ve never heard of jury nullification. You should look it up. It’s one of those things that protects us from the misuse of that living, breathing document – you know, the one that “the final authority” gave itself the power to interpret for us?

  17. “I should be good for now. I don’t own and operate a bitcoin ATM.”

    Yeah, follow the law, don’t run an unlicensed financial business, and you should be okay. There is a bitcoin ATM around the corner from where I live in a national grocery store that is doing fine. I don’t use it, but as far as I can tell they aren’t on the FBI list for a raid because they are licensed.

    “Can you guess which character you remind me of, gz?”

    I always thought Winston at the end of the book more accurately describes me. Gotta love Big Brother.

  18. “It would be more accurate to say the Constitution says whatever federal authorities say it means, gz. This is in spite of the fact that it was written in plain language. But I get it. Living, breathing document and such. Cue Brooklyn Bridge joke.”

    Well yes, specifically it says whatever the judicial branch says it says. You’ll find no disagreement with me there.

    “Uh huh. Thing is, I wasn’t making that argument, gz. As far as the Constitution goes, any property seized has to be done so under warrant and only with probable cause. In RICO cases, ALL assets are frozen, even those tied indirectly with a defendant at the time of indictment. See how that could be a violation of the rights of the accused? Just kidding, You’ve already admitted that you don’t care about any of that.”

    You don’t think Ian et al was arrested and their assets seized based on probable cause and a warrant? Clearly not all assets were frozen. Ian was perfectly able to afford an attorney right away.

    “Geez. I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with all of this. Although I did like how you threw in the word “usury.” Nice oldy-sounding term. Kind of like something a Jesuit zealot from the 16th century would say.”

    The point is, criminal forfeiture doesn’t require that seized assets are stolen, only that they are ill gotten or illegally obtained. Usury is still a valid term, despite it admittedly sounding ancient.

    “This comment wasn’t directed at me, but it’s clear you’ve never heard of jury nullification. You should look it up. It’s one of those things that protects us from the misuse of that living, breathing document – you know, the one that “the final authority” gave itself the power to interpret for us?”

    Jury nullification is a loophole in the judicial system, not a mechanism by design. Most juries have the power to nullify, but not the right. It’s a double edged sword anyway, as there have been historical cases of all white juries refusing to convict white defendants accused of murdering a black man. (Look up Byron De La Beckwith)

    In civil cases by the way, jury nullification doesn’t apply, as a judge can do a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the jury is wrong.

    In this case, I doubt Ian et al are going to tug on the conscience of the jurors enough for them to disregard the law.

  19. there was a case of a Chinese guy… where the jury let a very guilty white girl go

  20. “Well yes, specifically it says whatever the judicial branch says it says. You’ll find no disagreement with me there.”

    How eloquent. Anyway, no gz. The notion of judicial review isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. It’s actually an implied power, derived from SCOTUS’s decision regarding Marbury v. Madison. Take special note of the word “implied.” That’s your first clue that something about it is suspicious.

    “Clearly not all assets were frozen. Ian was perfectly able to afford an attorney right away.”

    Uh huh. It’s never once occurred to you that Ian’s getting help through donations, now has it?

    “The point is, criminal forfeiture doesn’t require that seized assets are stolen, only that they are ill gotten or illegally obtained. Usury is still a valid term, despite it admittedly sounding ancient.”

    Then the crimes you’re referencing are merely statutory in nature. Which means there are no victims at all. So why seize the assets in the first place if there’s no one to return them to? Doesn’t that sound fishy to you? Just kidding. I already know your answer to that question.

    Oh, by the way, “usury” historically has been used as a loaded term by politicians as an excuse to take firmer control of the nation’s money supply through more regulation. The truth is, charging interest on lending is a necessary and beneficial service in all market economies. Which means interest rates should be whatever market demand says it should be, not what a bureaucrat thinks it should be. It’s not a legitimate role of government to be setting interest rates or fees on private services.

    “Jury nullification is a loophole in the judicial system, not a mechanism by design. Most juries have the power to nullify, but not the right. It’s a double edged sword anyway, as there have been historical cases of all white juries refusing to convict white defendants accused of murdering a black man. (Look up Byron De La Beckwith)”

    A loophole but not a mechanism, huh? Wow. Cool. Anyway, jury nullification is actually a common law concept, in use well before the creation of the American republic. It’s crucial as a check on the abuse of government power. Yes, it also has the potential to be used unfavorably, but a sword is still a sword, now isn’t it?

    “In civil cases by the way, jury nullification doesn’t apply, as a judge can do a judgment notwithstanding the verdict if the jury is wrong.”

    Got it, gz. No need to state the obvious. I’m pretty sure most everyone here knows the proper setting for jury nullification.

    “In this case, I doubt Ian et al are going to tug on the conscience of the jurors enough for them to disregard the law.”

    There’s a chance you might be eating those words. Civil libertarians have been doing a lot of jury nullification outreach in NH over the years.

  21. Later, he play joke. And he go pee pee in her Coke. 😉

  22. “How eloquent. Anyway, no gz. The notion of judicial review isn’t found anywhere in the Constitution. It’s actually an implied power, derived from SCOTUS’s decision regarding Marbury v. Madison. Take special note of the word “implied.” That’s your first clue that something about it is suspicious.”

    Sure, that power was derived via Marbury v. Madison case and the implied language in the Constitution. What alternative do you want to see, anyway? Are you saying that you don’t want SCOTUS to interpret the law, and instead leave it to the executive branch? I know you don’t. The legislature? I don’t think you’ll like how the current senate and house will interpret the second amendment among others. At any rate, they seem to be fine with the judicial having that authority, given they’ve had a couple hundred years to draft legislation saying otherwise. Who should be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution?

    “Uh huh. It’s never once occurred to you that Ian’s getting help through donations, now has it?”

    He lawyered up much faster than the others, which I infer to mean that he still has assets. Are the donations preferentially going toward him first, despite being advertised to going to the entire “Crypto6”? If so, that’s really disgusting. (at least in my opinion.)

    “Then the crimes you’re referencing are merely statutory in nature. Which means there are no victims at all. So why seize the assets in the first place if there’s no one to return them to? Doesn’t that sound fishy to you? Just kidding. I already know your answer to that question.”

    I’m not aware of there being many crimes left in this country that haven’t been codified by statute. Virtually all crimes are statutory at this point, so I’m not really sure what you are saying here.

    The government has decided through legislation that it is criminal to take advantage of people by charging them high interest rates (as determined by elected representatives). It deprives them of value without providing an equitable exchange. Contracts have to benefit both sides, and cannot be entirely or mostly one sided. (That by the way comes from common law.) The legislative and judicial system get to decide what is fair.

    I’m sure there will an effort to compensate any victims, but I can imagine that many will not want to be found. What should happen to the remaining funds? If a purse snatcher grabs a woman’s purse, but she can’t be found later, does the suspect get to keep the purse?

    “Oh, by the way, “usury” historically has been used as a loaded term by politicians as an excuse to take firmer control of the nation’s money supply through more regulation. The truth is, charging interest on lending is a necessary and beneficial service in all market economies. Which means interest rates should be whatever market demand says it should be, not what a bureaucrat thinks it should be. It’s not a legitimate role of government to be setting interest rates or fees on private services.”

    If you feel really strongly about that, you should campaign to change usury laws. I suspect that most people disagree, but you are welcome to try. Just because you disagree though, it doesn’t mean that it is outside of the scope of the government’s Constitutional authority.

    “A loophole but not a mechanism, huh? Wow. Cool. Anyway, jury nullification is actually a common law concept, in use well before the creation of the American republic. It’s crucial as a check on the abuse of government power. Yes, it also has the potential to be used unfavorably, but a sword is still a sword, now isn’t it?”

    I suppose unintended side effect is more accurate than loophole, which implies that jury nullification was intended.

    Sure, it was in use during common law. So what? It doesn’t mean that it is intended, or explicitly allowed by the court system. (Even when common law was relevant.)

    “There’s a chance you might be eating those words. Civil libertarians have been doing a lot of jury nullification outreach in NH over the years.”

    Well see. I’m trying to picture a normal person hearing the charges, presented with enough evidence, and being so bothered by the injustice of the law that they come back with a not guilty verdict. Ian isn’t Rosa Parks or Gandhi. I guarantee his attorney is trying to get him to settle to a plea deal.

    Now as a counter example, I could see jury nullification working during the next election in Georgia should people get arrested while they are handing out food and water to voters.

  23. “Sure, that power was derived via Marbury v. Madison case and the implied language in the Constitution. What alternative do you want to see, anyway? Are you saying that you don’t want SCOTUS to interpret the law, and instead leave it to the executive branch? I know you don’t. The legislature? I don’t think you’ll like how the current senate and house will interpret the second amendment among others. At any rate, they seem to be fine with the judicial having that authority, given they’ve had a couple hundred years to draft legislation saying otherwise. Who should be the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution?”

    Uh huh. Strange that you’re using the 2nd Amendment as your example here, gz. The right that, despite it’s plain language, has been infringed upon with SCOTUS’s blessing for a hundred years.

    Anyway, I’m not disputing the notion that there’s a need for a process to prevent Federal statutes that violate that Constitution from being enacted and enforced. The problem is there is no such process written explicitly within the document itself. There is only an implied power, usurped by the Judiciary Branch, which allows them to impose their own views of the law, unhindered by any adequate checks on overreach.

    “I’m not aware of there being many crimes left in this country that haven’t been codified by statute. Virtually all crimes are statutory at this point, so I’m not really sure what you are saying here.”

    I’m saying crimes should have victims. It’s not the legitimate role of government to be telling people which products and services they’re allowed to buy, what sorts of entrepreneurships they’re allowed to engage in, or how they’re supposed to run them.

    “The government has decided through legislation that it is criminal to take advantage of people by charging them high interest rates (as determined by elected representatives). It deprives them of value without providing an equitable exchange. Contracts have to benefit both sides, and cannot be entirely or mostly one sided. (That by the way comes from common law.) The legislative and judicial system get to decide what is fair.”

    Actually, in common law, contracts don’t have to do anything of the sort. The only requirements are agreement, consideration, capacity, and intention. What benefits each party is up to negotiation. Good or bad. Don’t have much to offer anyone? Then expect to get screwed. Case in point. Who’s side do you think those 20% interest rates on credit card cash advances is benefiting more?

    “I’m sure there will an effort to compensate any victims, but I can imagine that many will not want to be found. What should happen to the remaining funds? If a purse snatcher grabs a woman’s purse, but she can’t be found later, does the suspect get to keep the purse?”

    You’re traipsing off into the weeds, gz. We’re talking about violations of financial disclosure laws here. Ian is not being accused of figuratively stealing a woman’s purse. There are no victims. Assets in these cases are frozen because… reasons. Not because the government is safekeeping them for restitution purposes in the event of a guilty verdict.

    “I suppose unintended side effect is more accurate than loophole, which implies that jury nullification was intended. […] Sure, it was in use during common law. So what? It doesn’t mean that it is intended, or explicitly allowed by the court system. (Even when common law was relevant.)”

    “So what,” huh? Remember who said that. You’re gonna hate me for what’s coming next. 😉

    Because by that it’s safe to say that you also mean it was never the intention of jurors to refuse to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act. What do you think their intention was, then? Answer carefully, gz. And don’t say “whiteness.” That’s the answer for everything these days.

    “Now as a counter example, I could see jury nullification working during the next election in Georgia should people get arrested while they are handing out food and water to voters.”

    You’ve misread that law, gz. Ha ha. Just kidding. I know you didn’t actually read it. Anyway, the Georgia law your referring to doesn’t make it illegal to supply food or water to voters. It only makes it illegal for political partisans to do so. Huge difference, right? At any rate, I for one don’t expect much jury nullification to be had if Stacey Abrams finds herself as a defendant for handing out Snickers bars and Gatorade at polling sites. That law is not as unpopular in GA as people think it is.

  24. “Anyway, I’m not disputing the notion that there’s a need for a process to prevent Federal statutes that violate that Constitution from being enacted and enforced. The problem is there is no such process written explicitly within the document itself. There is only an implied power, usurped by the Judiciary Branch, which allows them to impose their own views of the law, unhindered by any adequate checks on overreach.”

    There are a lot of things that are not explicitly written into the constitution. It is a broad governing document. You have to put on your thinking cap and use logic and deductive reasoning to interpret how it is written. It wouldn’t be appropriate to put in every granular process the government does into the document, and it was never designed to be that way. There are other places to check out if you want more explicit language, like the USC.

    “Uh huh. Strange that you’re using the 2nd Amendment as your example here, gz. The right that, despite it’s plain language, has been infringed upon with SCOTUS’s blessing for a hundred years.”

    Pick your amendment then. I was using it as an example because the democrats have known to not be as favorable in its interpretation as the republicans. I think many would disagree with you and say that SCOTUS has been too lenient. Incidentally, this disagreement patently shows that the interpretation isn’t so cut and dry. It also shows that we need a final arbiter on what the Constitution actually says. (aka, SCOTUS)

    “Anyway, I’m not disputing the notion that there’s a need for a process to prevent Federal statutes that violate that Constitution from being enacted and enforced. The problem is there is no such process written explicitly within the document itself. There is only an implied power, usurped by the Judiciary Branch, which allows them to impose their own views of the law, unhindered by any adequate checks on overreach.”

    Again, the Constitution was never meant to be a document explicitly listing out every granular detail of how government is to run. It contains broad sweeping statements of its powers and limitations. Inference and interpretation is necessary here.

    SCOTUS appointments are made by the executive, and confirmed by the senate (legislature). Additionally, judges can be impeached. If the legislature disagrees with the interpretation of the Constitution, they can change the Constitution. How are there no checks and balances here?

    “I’m saying crimes should have victims. It’s not the legitimate role of government to be telling people which products and services they’re allowed to buy, what sorts of entrepreneurships they’re allowed to engage in, or how they’re supposed to run them.”

    The victim of these crimes is the people getting charged high interest (usury and lack of financial regulation) and criminals making away with ill-gotten gains (money laundering and lack of financial regulation).

    Well, you can have that opinion, but all of those roles are legitimate according to the Constitution. Historically, governments have always had those roles. (Even when common law reigned supreme.) I know you don’t want government, but to say it is not legitimate calls into question what of legitimacy means.

    “Actually, in common law, contracts don’t have to do anything of the sort. The only requirements are agreement, consideration, capacity, and intention. What benefits each party is up to negotiation. Good or bad. Don’t have much to offer anyone? Then expect to get screwed. Case in point. Who’s side do you think those 20% interest rates on credit card cash advances is benefiting more?”

    Uh huh. All of those factors play into illegal or unconscionable contracts, which doesn’t contradict what I am saying. (Especially look up what consideration means. A one sided contract doesn’t have consideration.)

    I think 20% is a criminal interest rate, yes. Unfortunately for me, state and federal legislatures disagree. It goes both ways.

    “You’re traipsing off into the weeds, gz. We’re talking about violations of financial disclosure laws here. Ian is not being accused of figuratively stealing a woman’s purse. There are no victims. Assets in these cases are frozen because… reasons. Not because the government is safekeeping them for restitution purposes in the event of a guilty verdict.”

    He is accused of money laundering, which involves taking illegally earned currency and making it appear legitimate. So, to integrate the two, he is the guy the purse snatcher goes to to buy bitcoin. Why should Ian get to profit off of this crime?

    ““So what,” huh? Remember who said that. You’re gonna hate me for what’s coming next. ?

    Because by that it’s safe to say that you also mean it was never the intention of jurors to refuse to convict persons accused of violating the Fugitive Slave Act. What do you think their intention was, then? Answer carefully, gz. And don’t say “whiteness.” That’s the answer for everything these days.”

    Right… it’s a double edged sword. It still isn’t an intentional mechanism for justice, and still not technically legal. (Which is why the defense cannot bring it up to the jury.)

    I don’t get what you’re after with the “whiteness” thing .

    You’ve misread that law, gz. Ha ha. Just kidding. I know you didn’t actually read it. Anyway, the Georgia law your referring to doesn’t make it illegal to supply food or water to voters. It only makes it illegal for political partisans to do so. Huge difference, right? At any rate, I for one don’t expect much jury nullification to be had if Stacey Abrams finds herself as a defendant for handing out Snickers bars and Gatorade at polling sites. That law is not as unpopular in GA as people think it is.

    Did you? SB 202 doesn’t specifically mention political partisans. It specifically says “nor shall any person..” and most legal scholars (and anybody that can use reasoning) say that it applies to everybody.

    Perhaps you are right. We’ll see.

  25. “There are a lot of things that are not explicitly written into the constitution. It is a broad governing document. You have to put on your thinking cap and use logic and deductive reasoning to interpret how it is written. You have to put on your thinking cap and use logic and deductive reasoning to interpret how it is written. It wouldn’t be appropriate to put in every granular process the government does into the document, and it was never designed to be that way. ”

    Umm, no gz. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention went out of their way to make sure it was written in plain language. It was even amended ten times before ratification in an attempt to avoid any disputes. But you know what they say – you can’t polish a turd, right?

    “I think many would disagree with you and say that SCOTUS has been too lenient. Incidentally, this disagreement patently shows that the interpretation isn’t so cut and dry.”

    That’s the problem with one-size fits all solutions. Not everyone agrees on everything. So why force people who disagree to do things only one way? You know why.

    “Again, the Constitution was never meant to be a document explicitly listing out every granular detail of how government is to run. It contains broad sweeping statements of its powers and limitations. Inference and interpretation is necessary here.”

    Yup. What it was meant to do was dissolve the American confederation and replace it with a federation with a centralized authority and, most importantly, the power to tax the states.

    Fun fact, by the way. A lot of the delegates who were invited to Philadelphia weren’t even aware they’d be attending a Constitutional Convention until they got there. Tells you all you need to know about some of those “founding fathers,” huh?

    “SCOTUS appointments are made by the executive, and confirmed by the senate (legislature). Additionally, judges can be impeached. If the legislature disagrees with the interpretation of the Constitution, they can change the Constitution. How are there no checks and balances here?”

    I made no such argument, gz. What I said was that the Judicial Branch’s usurpation of authority granted by the doctrine of judicial review came about because the delegates at the Constitutional Convention failed to include such a process in the Constitution in the first place.

    “Well, you can have that opinion, but all of those roles are legitimate according to the Constitution.”

    Umm, no gz. They’re not mentioned in the Constitution at all.

    “Historically, governments have always had those roles.”

    Not in the American republic. In fact, in American history, caps on interest rates came about as a consequence the Federal government’s forays into central banking – a hugely unpopular thing in the early republic, by the way. Unfortunately, then the era of the Federal Reserve began, and increasingly draconian financial regulations eventually became the norm.

    “I know you don’t want government, but to say it is not legitimate calls into question what of legitimacy means.”

    I made no such argument. I have no objection to any government that’s content with its role in protecting its citizens’ liberty and property. It’s those illegitimate roles that I have a problem with. You know, the ones that take those things away?

    “Right… it’s a double edged sword. It still isn’t an intentional mechanism for justice, and still not technically legal. (Which is why the defense cannot bring it up to the jury.)”

    Umm, no again. Judges may not like it when jurors choose to pervert verdicts, but nullification has always been perfectly legal.

    “I don’t get what you’re after with the “whiteness” thing .”

    So what? 😉

    “Did you? SB 202 doesn’t specifically mention political partisans. It specifically says “nor shall any person..” and most legal scholars (and anybody that can use reasoning) say that it applies to everybody.”

    Let’s see here. SB 202. Section 33.

    Aha! There’s that pesky political partisan! It’s that guy in the first clause trying to solicit votes! What a dick, huh?

    Anyway, here’s a solution. Voting precincts can set up tables with food and water on them. Then all the voters have to do is walk over to them, pick up what they want themselves, and get back in line. Or voters can just bring their own food and water. If you want a waiter, gz, then go to a restaurant. Polling locations are for voting.

  26. Damn thing cut my SB 202 paragraph out. Here it is for reference.

    “No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast…”

  27. “Umm, no gz. The delegates at the Constitutional Convention went out of their way to make sure it was written in plain language. It was even amended ten times before ratification in an attempt to avoid any disputes. But you know what they say – you can’t polish a turd, right?”

    Right, but it was written with broad language. This doesn’t really dispute my point.

    “That’s the problem with one-size fits all solutions. Not everyone agrees on everything. So why force people who disagree to do things only one way? You know why.”

    Because people can opinions that lead them to do harmful things, and that necessitates a government to protect society from those things.

    “Yup. What it was meant to do was dissolve the American confederation and replace it with a federation with a centralized authority and, most importantly, the power to tax the states.

    Fun fact, by the way. A lot of the delegates who were invited to Philadelphia weren’t even aware they’d be attending a Constitutional Convention until they got there. Tells you all you need to know about some of those “founding fathers,” huh?”

    Sure.

    So what? Is there some requirement that they need to notified 30 days in advance, or the ratified government is null and void?

    “I made no such argument, gz. What I said was that the Judicial Branch’s usurpation of authority granted by the doctrine of judicial review came about because the delegates at the Constitutional Convention failed to include such a process in the Constitution in the first place.”

    Expressly? Sure, they didn’t include it. However, it is the logical outcome of a constitution that requires the judicial branch to uphold it as the supreme law of the land. How would the government work in a land where the courts didn’t have judicial review? The legislature would pass a law that conflicts with the constitution, and the judicial would be forced to follow the constitution and not the conflicting law. What do you think would happen next? (Hint: we’re reinventing judicial review)

    Also, the concept of judicial review was a known concept prior to the formation of the country in the colonial courts.

    “Umm, no gz. They’re not mentioned in the Constitution at all.”

    Most relevant I think, to regulating trade and finances:

    Section. 8.
    The Congress shall have Power(…)

    to provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States

    To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

    To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    Also, don’t forget that the Constitution gives the states power to regulate these things as well:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Again, these are sweeping statements. The specifics are in the USC and other documents.

    “Not in the American republic. In fact, in American history, caps on interest rates came about as a consequence the Federal government’s forays into central banking – a hugely unpopular thing in the early republic, by the way. Unfortunately, then the era of the Federal Reserve began, and increasingly draconian financial regulations eventually became the norm.”

    Like it or not, this was still entirely constitutional.

    “I made no such argument. I have no objection to any government that’s content with its role in protecting its citizens’ liberty and property. It’s those illegitimate roles that I have a problem with. You know, the ones that take those things away?”

    Okay, I guess we have to get terms pinned down. What does legitimacy mean to you?

    “Umm, no again. Judges may not like it when jurors choose to pervert verdicts, but nullification has always been perfectly legal.”

    They can’t do anything about it, because in doing so they would violate the jury’s rights. Since there is no punishment, it is in practice legal. However, it is technically illegal, as juries are just supposed to be the finder of fact and not law. It may be a distinction without practical meaning, but it is there.

    “No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast…”

    You might want to notice the word “nor” which is a conjunction similar to “and” that combines separate things or concepts together in a sentence. It says “nor shall any person”, not “nor shall any person who is a partisan”

    “Anyway, here’s a solution. Voting precincts can set up tables with food and water on them. Then all the voters have to do is walk over to them, pick up what they want themselves, and get back in line. Or voters can just bring their own food and water. If you want a waiter, gz, then go to a restaurant. Polling locations are for voting.”

    I thought you were arguing that people should have freedom? What is the crime if somebody feeds another in line? Isn’t this a government overreach, and a mere statutory crime? Where is the victim? You are inconsistent in your principles here.

  28. you guys sure do writet long post. I know where to go for my thesis on the Constitution

  29. Good talk, gz. But all this scrolling up and down is becoming cumbersome, and my time is limited, so I’ll just respond to your last two points.

    “You might want to notice the word “nor” which is a conjunction similar to “and” that combines separate things or concepts together in a sentence. It says “nor shall any person”, not “nor shall any person who is a partisan””

    Actually, it’s pretty clear from the start that the purpose is to curtail the soliciting of votes. That’s why soliciting was brought up right off the bat. Solicitors, by definition, would be “partisan,” by the way.

    “I thought you were arguing that people should have freedom? What is the crime if somebody feeds another in line? Isn’t this a government overreach, and a mere statutory crime? Where is the victim? You are inconsistent in your principles here.”

    I expressed no opinion of SB 202 at all, gz. I was merely correcting your claim that SB 202 outlaws “any person” from handing out food and water to voters. It doesn’t. It outlaws solicitors from doing so. Big difference.

  30. “Good talk, gz. But all this scrolling up and down is becoming cumbersome, and my time is limited, so I’ll just respond to your last two points.”

    It is pretty tough to scroll, you might get carpal tunnel syndrome.

    “Actually, it’s pretty clear from the start that the purpose is to curtail the soliciting of votes. That’s why soliciting was brought up right off the bat. Solicitors, by definition, would be “partisan,” by the way.”

    You might want to notice the word “nor” which is a conjunction similar to “and” that combines separate things or concepts together in a sentence. It says “nor shall any person”, not “nor shall any person who is a partisan. The first part mentions partisans, then the next part talks about any person.

    “I expressed no opinion of SB 202 at all, gz.”
    “If you want a waiter, gz, then go to a restaurant. Polling locations are for voting.”

    Okay. If only I could infer how you feel about this topic from other sentences you’ve written. Oh well, I guess. The world may never know your opinion on SB 202.

  31. Uh huh. Good to know, gz. Anyway, thanks for being such a mensch.

    Oh, before I go, quick question. SB 202 instituted a list of reforms to GA’s election laws. Yet you’re still harping on about the fact that GA’s outlawed waiters at polling locations? What’s up with that? You are aware that corpses and illegals were casting ballots in 2020, right?

  32. “Oh, before I go, quick question. SB 202 instituted a list of reforms to GA’s election laws. Yet you’re still harping on about the fact that GA’s outlawed waiters at polling locations? What’s up with that? You are aware that corpses and illegals were casting ballots in 2020, right?”

    Well, I was initially bringing up SB 202 as a likely example for jury nullification as opposed to Ian’s case which will likely not see jury nullification. You are the one that wanted to discuss SB 202 further.

    The other provisions aren’t necessarily problematic. I’ve served multiple times as the administrative election judge for my precinct, and I am fine with there being rules against electioneering.

    To the extent that corpses and illegals voted (proof?) is irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

    Saying that I want waiters at the polling place is a big strawman you’ve created here. (Or your definition of waiter is laughably wrong.)

  33. Well, if there are waiters there, then it might be worth it to vote there in GA 😉

  34. Pretty much all the voting legislation that’s popped up has been an effort by republicans, to garner more votes
    Or put another way to whittle away Democrat’s votes…
    That rather than making their party more attractive to the voting populous

  35. I call them demoblicans and republicrats

  36. 200 grand to give to lawyers to repair the mess that the lawyers created? not a good move imho

  37. Ian Freeman is a known child molester and hopefully he will rot and die in jail.

  38. People are citing scripture when these were literally money changers at the temple.

Care to comment?