BREAKING: Ian Freeman Granted Bail

Bitcoin Cast Interviews Ian Freeman

Ian Freeman

Almost two months after his arrest by the FBI regarding cryptocurrency related charges, host of Free Talk Live Ian Freeman has been granted bail.

The decision came after a half hour zoom hearing before Judge Joseph Laplante. When discussing the matter of cash bail, the prosecution had originally suggested $200,000 but alleged that Freeman could have millions of dollars in hidden assets. Judge Laplante stated that he did not want to be a vehicle for discovery for either side and eventually set cash bail at $200,000 but allowed for the Shire Free Church to put up two properties as collateral to insure that Freeman doesn’t flee.

Freeman’s defense attorney Mark Sisti mentioned that New Hampshire is suffering a shortage of bail bondsmen and that it was not a likely option for Freeman.

During the hearing Judge Laplante spoke directly to Freeman and spoke plainly, saying that he was accused of a “white collar crime” and isn’t a violent danger to his community. Laplante stated that he agreed with the Magistrate’s decision to deny Freeman bail but now he believes that Freeman will not be difficult to monitor, and added: “the leash is going to be short”.

“Don’t be tempted to test US probation by pushing the edge of the envelop,” Judge Laplante said to Freeman regarding continuing his cryptocurrency trading business after release.

Judge Laplante also stressed how the conditions aren’t set up for Freeman to fail but rather to make sure he makes it to his 2022 court date.

One “deal breaking” condition of the release is that all of the firearms in the building Freeman will be living in must be removed for the safety of the probation officer.

The prosecution had no objections nor did Freeman and Judge Laplante said he suspects the orders would be ready by tomorrow.

Story written by Vincent Moore. Posted with permission. Original source: https://vincentmoore.substack.com/p/breaking-ian-freeman-granted-bail

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


43 Comments

  1. Yay

  2. This seems entirely reasonable. Defendants are presumed innocent and bail should only be denied if the defendant is a flight risk or a danger to the public. Mr. Freeman doesn’t appear to be either.

  3. oh well… They misspelled “leaving” (?)
    It’s ok with me if he stays in the can.
    He’s a f’ing douchbag

  4. In would like to see any affidavite where a man or woman swears under perjury, that Ian (or any of the crypto 6) have caused them injury.

  5. I do not typically comment but I must say, it seems like there are several people on this website that seem overly eager to slander, if outright accuse Ian of being engaged in or doing certain things with little to no evidence. Either there are people that have listened to FTL or live in NH and seem to have some kind of vendetta against him, and/or the feds really despise him and really have been waiting to have it out for years and are enjoying leaving their nasty little comments on here. As far as I know from this case, the “white collar crimes” Ian committed were non-violent and largely victimless. If it turns out he did defraud a significant number of people and these victims speak up, then I do think he should have to pay restitution. Until that point, the accusations and unnecessary hatefulness are not doing any good or providing anything of substance.

  6. This will be interesting. A major criminal being let out on bond. Whether it was a white collar crime or murder, He is still a criminal. I wonder how he will defraud more people while he is out on bail. Did they put an ankle bracelet on Ian? The bar is open. Will he stay or will he flee? Knowing Ian’s narcissistic personality, he just may run.

    I think Ian will stick it to the friends he has in one way or another. Is he allowed to have contact with any of the other crypto6? Since he can’t have firearms, did the judge say no alcohol and illicit drugs? I think there is a lot more to the conditions of his bail then what was written here.

  7. At least the judge and prosecutor have an unintended ironic sense of humor regarding bail conditions. Not to mention every dime they get paid with is gotten thru gun violence or the threat of it.

    Pretty ironical that the only way the US dollar has remained as the dominant world currency is guns have been used, yet Ian a guy that preaches peaceful and voluntary human interactions is made out to be a threat.

  8. Very good news! I hope he can get back to being a productive person. He is doing all of us a favor by setting these legal questions in motion.

  9. Honestly- I don’t think there is anything more productive that Ian could be doing- he managed to make sitting in a cage a productive use of time. He’s an amazing individual who advocates for peaceful resistance in the face of kidnappers and violence and somehow manages to accomplish more than any other human being I’ve ever met.

    There is no evidence he committed fraud against anyone and from the sound of it they’re trying to claim the fraud was somehow against the banks, but both it and the people they also alluded to who did have actual fraud committed against them, well, it’s so twisted in Ian had nothing to do with it and actually worked to stop that, and there never was any fraud committed against the banks. Effectively what they are saying is starting a church and truthfully telling a banker you operate a church is fraud. You may not be a fan of this particular religious group, but it doesn’t change the fact that it isn’t fraud.

  10. Wow, the loonies are out and about. Ian is no saint nor is he good guy. He has been bilking people out of their monkey for several years now. You blame the FBI and law enforcement of his being arrested but you fail to see the bigger picture as to what he has done. ow does Ian get all that money in such a short period of time? Because he was scamming not only freekeeners but anyone else who would buy into his BS, Ian’s so called church was never recognized as legitimist. To hide his money he then makes up bogus accounts with banks to hide his income. He is an ignorant and arrogant.

    If he was so innocent, he wouldn’t be facing any years in prison. I’m sure Jim Jones and Jeff Warrens were labeled as good guys by their followers as well.

  11. Now Jacks,

    You aren’t doubting Judge Laplante’s wisdom, are you? She seems quite confident to let Ian out of his cage for a while. You should too…

  12. He*

  13. Jacks: You have to be the dumbest motherfucker as this has been explained to you a fuckton of times now.

    “He has been bilking people out of their monkey for several years now.”

    They accuse him of selling Bitcoin and that is about it. They’re not claiming Ian partook in the scams themselves and those scammed have nothing to do with Ian as his lawyer has pointed out already. There are plenty of scammers who utilize, and in fact they did per the story, use the governments own authorized system: the banks. To the extent they might be claiming he somehow defrauded the banks that is a bit of a stretch. Claiming to be a church when you are opening a personal bank account for a church and you are depositing donations into the church bank account doesn’t constitute fraud. They don’t ask you for every use of a bank account when you open an account. They just ask for a general description. Exactly what the revenue from Bitcoin sales constitute is up for debate which explicitly means its NOT fraud. If it was so clear cut there would be no point in taking it to trial. The reality is churches operate businesses and those proceeds as far as probably any church or religious institution counts are donations or other revenue for the church to use as it sees fit. That would only become fraud maybe if the church was not using those funds for church-related activities. For instance if Ian was purchasing six figure BMWs, spending lavishly on houses, and other items, etc. He didn’t. He donated or tried to buy and/or donate properties on a number of occasions to charitable organizations like a homeless shelter and another religious entity.

    “How does Ian get all that money in such a short period of time?”

    He didn’t. The Shire Free Church is not Ian Freeman. The Shire Free Church is made up of a board of which has had different people on it over the years, and the money raised by the church went to numerous charitable causes of which many church members volunteered and donated time over the years. The church didn’t hide the fact that it ran a number of crypto vending businesses as they were published in numerous stories all over New Hampshire and the world. You already know this though and are just dense as fuck. Nobody is as retarded as you make yourself out to be.

    “Because he was scamming not only freekeeners but anyone else who would buy into his BS”

    What scam? Do you think Ian invented Bitcoin or something? Where exactly did Ian scam anybody? You’ve entirely failed to state what or for that matter the prosecutor really think is a scam. Did Ian sell Bitcoin on behalf of the Shire Free Church? Sure, maybe, but that is a legal activity, and businesses can even register for it. So that can’t be in and of itself a scam. Did other people scam users? Sure, but that doesn’t mean Ian has had anything to do with that and would routinely refuse to sell Bitcoin to people who he thought were being scammed. The same is true of the banks. In fact for a user to be scammed more often than not involved the very banks Ian is being accused of defrauding. The problem is Ian didn’t sell people anything other than crypto and never told the persons who sent the money that he was selling them something he was not. In fact he would have required people to identify the fact that they were NOT under the impression that they were purchasing something else explicitly because of these sorts of third party scammers. If somebody is dumb as nails and buys something from Ian thinking they were buying a car when they wrote on the receipt “this is for BTC” and took a picture of it before the crypto got released and submitted photo ID since he complied with KYC even though he didn’t have to that isn’t Ian scamming people. That just proves the exact opposite. It proves Ian wasn’t involved in scamming anybody and the fact they’ve already indicated that there is evidence of Ian declining to sell to people indicating that they were involved in the drug business also evidence he was NOT involved in money laundering either. If somebody was able to get crypto after he declined to do business with them through some other means unaware to him that isn’t money laundering. You have to knowingly commit the offense.

    “Ian’s so called church was never recognized as legitimist.”

    Did you ever read the constitution? Where does it say you have to seek recognition from the government to have a church? Churches can register, but there is no requirement to do so, and not all churches are registered.

    “To hide his money”

    Again, where is the evidence? The banks obviously knew how much was passing through these accounts and the banks knew the individuals who opened the accounts upon which the church operated and presumably in at least these cases that was Ian Freeman.

    ” he then makes up bogus accounts ”

    wtf- the banks opened the accounts because he followed their procedures. You can’t call them bogus accounts just because you don’t like his religious beliefs.

    “with banks to hide his income. ”

    How does opening a bank account hide his income? You do realize that since 2001ish banks require a social security number and there is no hiding of anything. If you want to hide your income you don’t open a US bank account. The one account Ian opened that was not a US bank account didn’t have any money in it from the sounds of it or they would have brought that up at the most recent hearing. I don’t know what was submitted, but it was pretty apparent that there weren’t any hidden assets.

    “He is an ignorant and arrogant. ”

    Seems like this is more applicable to you than Ian. I’ll point out that Ian had lawyers, Ian got the law changed to ensure he was in compliance with it, Ian crossed his T’s and dotted his I’s and the government is still trying to go after him. This isn’t a prosecution. It’s a persecution of an individual with a different set of beliefs than you.

  14. Jay, I’ll just supplement your excellent points above with a quote from the First Amendment. It reads:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

    And there ya have it. Other than that, trolls gonna troll. #BitcoinIsNotACrime #FreeTheCrypto6

  15. jay – Wow Your unending BS falls on deaf ears. I couldn’t even finish reading your ridiculous comments that make absolutely no sense. I cannot read stupid. It’s just not a language I care to learn.

    The current information I get is from the main stream media. Their stories are all consistent and understandable. Why would I believe anything you wrote? No, Ian is everything I posted and more. Your childish rants and raves are pure BS.
    I suggest you stop banging your head on the wall. It only gives you brain damage.

  16. Soon we’ll see Ian pop up in Freedom Orchard, using the name BrianTaxationIsTheft.

  17. Oh Jacks,

    The link you posted actually backs up more of what jay wrote than it does yours. You really are a character aren’t you?

  18. Intrigare – You obviously can’t read or comprehend the article

  19. Oh Jacks, your unending BS falls on deaf ears 😉

    Did you read or comprehend the quote from the Constitution I shared? Here it is again for your convenience:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

  20. “They accuse him of selling Bitcoin and that is about it.”

    No, they are claiming that he committed wire fraud; money laundering; operating a continuing financial crimes enterprise; and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business. You can pretend it is just about the bitcoin, but it is not. I have plenty of Coinstar machines around here where I can buy bitcoin. I can buy BTC online from a ton of places. Why are all of these establishments still in business if it is just about the bitcoin?

    “They’re not claiming Ian partook in the scams themselves and those scammed have nothing to do with Ian as his lawyer has pointed out already.”

    He enable those scams by laundering scammer’s money. It is no different then fencing stole goods. Or is enabling crime okay in your worldview?

    “There are plenty of scammers who utilize, and in fact they did per the story, use the governments own authorized system: the banks.”

    I tell you what, tell your bank teller that you are going to deposit drug money and see what happens. In Ian’s case, he said “Lalalalala I can’t hear you” and let them proceed with the transaction. Ian knew about the criminal activity, and banks don’t. In fact, if banks even suspect criminal activity at a minimum they need to fill out a suspicious activity report.

    “Shire Free Church is made up of a board of which has had different people on it over the years, and the money raised by the church went to numerous charitable causes of which many church members volunteered and donated time over the years. The church didn’t hide the fact that it ran a number of crypto vending businesses as they were published in numerous stories all over New Hampshire and the world. You already know this though and are just dense as fuck. Nobody is as retarded as you make yourself out to be.”

    From this description, it sounds like Ian was pretending to run a religious charitable organization, not a church. Business that are church-run are treated differently than the church itself. The church itself has no registration requirement, but religious organizations that conduct business do.

    “Did you ever read the constitution? Where does it say you have to seek recognition from the government to have a church? Churches can register, but there is no requirement to do so, and not all churches are registered.”

    You don’t, but that doesn’t mean the government is just going to stick its head in the sand and let people pretend they are running a church to shield assets. The government looks at certain criteria to determine if you are actually a church. It is not a get-out-of-tax-or-regulation-free card.

  21. Jacks:

    “I couldn’t even finish reading ”

    Yes, it’s apparent you never got passed the 1st grade as far as your reading comprehension skills.

    ” Their stories are all consistent and understandable”

    Except that isn’t the case and even if they were consistent that doesn’t make then true or accurate and even true and accurate statements can be misleading and show ones biases. Some articles have been better than others though. Often the writers bring up prior libel and slander for instance against Ian and then leave out critical information. Leaving out things like computers being ordered by a judge to be returned, and no charged ever even being brought after previously false allegations by the FBI is kinda important when you bring up the kiddie porn history, but it’s even more apparent you’re a biased piece of shit when your source has repeatedly pointed this out time and time again. This is criminal level slander and worthy of a lawsuit over. However unlike you and your ilk libertarians believe in free speech and rather let slanted papers be known as slanted rather than involve the use of violence and government to achieve social or political objectives.

    “This is the best information anyone could get”

    Yea, so you point us to basically the most biased sources of them all. Rather than IDK point people to the raw material where the lawyer actually had an opportunity to point out the lies and slander, no, you point to the slantinal.

  22. gloriouszorn:

    “You can pretend it is just about the bitcoin, but it is not. . ”

    Nobody thinks this is about Bitcoin. That is just the excuse the FBI is using to attack these individuals. This is persecution and politics for calling out the FBI for distributing child porn and otherwise having a significant media pretense and being anti-government. This is for all those prior occasions where the FBI lost or failed to actually achieve their objective in taking out the migration movement and Free Talk Live. First they tried to get Rich Paul to where a wire into the activist center. They then failed to achieve that “lifetime” sentence they were after as part of their retaliation. Then they failed to achieve their objective when they slandered Ian Freeman over non-existant child porn, two weeks AFTER Mark Edge called the FBI out for hypocritically saying child porn hurts children, which might be true, but if so then WTF was the FBI hurting children by distributing child porn? No, that failed to take out Ian, it failed to take out Free Talk Live, and this “Bitcoin” attack will fail just as the prior attacks, because it’s not just Ian Freeman. It’s a community with thousands of people they’re attacking. It’s not just Ian Freeman, and Free Talk Live has continued without any significant damage. In fact the migration movement is doing amazingly well and it’s thanks to these attacks by the FBI that we’re having some of the BEST years on record for attracting new movers to New Hampshire. Do I need to remind you morons that we went from 20 reps in the state house between this and the last election cycle? And that is JUST people who are part of the Free State Project? Do I need to remind you that there are about 80 reps in the state house that are libertarian? That is 80 times more than any other state or representation in any other part of the world.

    “I can buy BTC online from a ton of places. Why are all of these establishments still in business if it is just about the bitcoin?”

    So are many businesses that aren’t registered with the federal government. What is your point? The FBI doesn’t hit every person or business. They target operations selectively and then catch a handful of other people in their net to send messages home. The federal government doesn’t have the number of law enforcement officers that the state governments have and the methods they utilize are different.

    “He enable those scams by laundering scammer’s money. It is no different then fencing stole goods. Or is enabling crime okay in your worldview? ”

    I think your interpretation is wrong as this would make absolutely no sense, but they are being wishy washy about exactly what they are accusing Ian Freeman of, and it is a number of a different things.

    If that is the case every single bank “enables” scammers and money laundering too. In fact the banks were at the core of the supposed scams they’re mostly maybe referencing. The actual scammers convince the scammed to buy Bitcoin via wire transfers from people like Ian Freeman/the church who were honestly selling Bitcoin and/or use vending machines (whether or not they are registered with the federal government makes no difference in the scams working or not working). Ian Freeman and his church would conduct KYC to ensure that anybody scammed like this would at least have the opportunity to realize that they may be getting scammed, but some people are so dense or greedy that no amount of warning will save them from the actual scammer. It’s not the banks fault that these individuals were scammed and it’s not Ian Freeman or the Churches fault that these people got scammed. They didn’t “enable” money laundering or the scammers because Ian Freeman never KNOWINGLY (just like the banks never KNOWINGLY) were involved in any criminal activities of the scammers. Knowingly is the keyword that matters and you fail to understand that. Otherwise the banks are also guilty of money laundering. The reality is they’re not guilty and neither is Ian Freeman.

    The sale of Bitcoin isn’t what enabled the scam any more than the bank did or Walmart for selling prepaid gift cards. Selling Bitcoin as you pointed out already is completely legal in and of itself and getting the identify of the person buying bitcoin doesn’t hinder the actual scammers because once the Bitcoin is sent from the fools wallet to the scammer there is no getting that Bitcoin back. The intermediary plays no part in stopping scams outside of a warning message on a sign attached to the vending machines or writing ‘this is for btc’ on receipts before a seller sends the btc regardless of the seller being registered at the federal or not and it’s already been pointed out that Ian Freeman and the church did MORE than required of registered entities to discourage people who were being scammed from buying Bitcoin and sending that Bitcoin to scammers.

    Both the banks and the sale of Bitcoin were legitimate and merely intermediaries for the scammers. Unlike the banks Ian Freeman made sure to let people know that about the scams so fewer people would be duped into them. Did the bank warn every customer before they conducted a wire transfer to an unknown individual? I know for a fact they didn’t. I’ve done a lot of wire transfers over the years and NEVER once have I seen any warnings about not sending money to people you don’t know.

    Now there are entities that are warning consumers about these sorts of scams, but it’s not the banks, it’s not registered KYC complaint Bitcoin vendors, no. It’s Walmart, Walgreens, CVS, and the Shire Free Church doing that. I have seen plenty of warnings on cash registers letting unsuspecting people know of scammers getting dumb people to buy gift cards, refill phone cards, prepaid debit cards, and similar items. It just so happens the church ALSO warned people about these scams. No, neither the church nor Ian Freeman are guilty of enabling the scammers and the evidence so overwhelmingly against what you are implying it isn’t even funny.

    You can make false accusations, but that doesn’t make them true. The government is being very wishy washy as far as what they are even accusing Ian Freeman of currently. It does not sound to me like they are accusing Ian Freeman of scamming people, but if that is the case the evidence contradicts that.

    “I tell you what, tell your bank teller that you are going to deposit drug money and see what happens. In Ian’s case, he said ‘Lalalalala I can’t hear you’ and let them proceed with the transaction. Ian knew about the criminal activity, and banks don’t. In fact, if banks even suspect criminal activity at a minimum they need to fill out a suspicious activity report. ”

    As the lawyer already point out he DIDN’T DO THAT!!!!!! They fucking admitted you moron that this did not happen. The policy of the church and Ian Freeman was to DECLINE to do business with those who told them what they intended to do with the cryptocurrency purchased. He turned down the sale. The criminal then went around him and bought crypto from a vending machine it sounds like. This should not matter because he was not a bank or a licensed money transmitter. The rules don’t apply equally to everyone as you seem to think.

    2nd Ian Freeman nor the Church are a bank. They’re not required to be registered with the federal government nor are they required to fill out the paperwork you are suggesting. There are circumstances where that maybe the case, but it wasn’t the case here. In face the very GENERIC letter they sent him, and was posted to the docket as “proof” of what they were saying (technically not evidence as I understand it for trial, but it was for the hearing’s arguments) contradicted what the government was saying and very clearly indicated he MAY, but also may not have to register. He probably, but not necessarily had to register, and his lawyers already had previously advised him he did NOT have to register, and the state itself ALSO said that he didn’t have to register at the state level either. Ian Freeman is a big part of the reason that New Hampshire changed the law on this and so you can’t claim he was “evading” anything. He put more work into complying with the law than most actually businesses that registered with the federal government.

    “From this description, it sounds like Ian was pretending to run a religious charitable organization, not a church. Business that are church-run are treated differently than the church itself. The church itself has no registration requirement, but religious organizations that conduct business do.”

    This depends on the circumstances of the business being conducted. In this case the church was NOT required to register the business with the federal government. Go read the fucking letter that was posted to the docket where the churches lawyer wrote to ANOTHER business that explained why the church was NOT required to do this.

    “You don’t, but that doesn’t mean the government is just going to stick its head in the sand and let people pretend they are running a church to shield assets. The government looks at certain criteria to determine if you are actually a church. It is not a get-out-of-tax-or-regulation-free card.”

    He didn’t run a church to shield assets. He literally was doing business with financial institutions which were reporting to the government. How fucking dumb do you have to be to believe that someone who KNOWINGLY was being investigated by the FBI thought that his activities weren’t being reported to the government? WTF do you think was the reason that the bank demanded a social security #? Your reasoning makes no sense what-so-ever. There was never an effort to shield assets because if he had it wouldn’t have been US banks he did business with and it would have been his social security number used to open the majority of those accounts.

    To conclude I want to point out how retarded this argument is given the fact the church pays taxes and this fight was already had in New Hampshire. The church isn’t NOT paying taxes. They didn’t shield anything from the government as is being purported by dumb asses who have no idea what was and wasn’t going on and didn’t even bother reading the responses or documents posted to the docket. If all you read was the biased article you’re lacking information. Go read the fucking docket or listen to one of the many people who have who’ve reported on the goings on of this case. There is MUCH more detail available than what is being reported on by mainstream reporters reporting on the gist of what the prosecution is claiming and lying about and then failing to appropriately include the lawyer’s responses.

  23. “They accuse him of selling Bitcoin and that is about it.”
    “Nobody thinks this is about Bitcoin.”

    Uh huh.

    “This is persecution and politics for calling out the FBI for distributing child porn and otherwise having a significant media pretense and being anti-government….) ”

    That a nice conspiracy theory and all, but do you have any real proof? The FBI investigates people that they suspect are engaged in criminal conduct. Free Keeners have been openly and loudly flouting laws and regulations for years now.
    While I think marijuana should be legal, Rich Paul was selling it. Was the FBI supposed to ignore that?

    I think the FBI keeping that pedo site up as a honeypot was very controversial, and they rightfully should be criticized. But for what it is worth, they did make numerous arrests and brought some offenders to justice. It is curious that the site brought them to Ian’s home. One might think the guy who is publicly flexible on the age of consent might be a suspect, and you might think it’s a plot by the FBI to bring him down. Unfortunately, neither of us has proof.

    “It’s a community with thousands of people they’re attacking.”

    Pretty sure only Ian and a few people were indicted. That’s a few short of thousands of people.

    “Do I need to remind you morons that we went from 20 reps in the state house between this and the last election cycle? And that is JUST people who are part of the Free State Project? Do I need to remind you that there are about 80 reps in the state house that are libertarian? That is 80 times more than any other state or representation in any other part of the world.”

    I am happy that you feel represented. What does this have to do with what we are talking about?

    “So are many businesses that aren’t registered with the federal government. What is your point? The FBI doesn’t hit every person or business. They target operations selectively and then catch a handful of other people in their net to send messages home. The federal government doesn’t have the number of law enforcement officers that the state governments have and the methods they utilize are different.”

    No, I am pretty sure the numerous places I am talking about are registered. Ian was not.

    “As the lawyer already point out he DIDN’T DO THAT!!!!!! They fucking admitted you moron that this did not happen. The policy of the church and Ian Freeman was to DECLINE to do business with those who told them what they intended to do with the cryptocurrency purchased. He turned down the sale. The criminal then went around him and bought crypto from a vending machine it sounds like. This should not matter because he was not a bank or a licensed money transmitter. The rules don’t apply equally to everyone as you seem to think.”

    Where was the ATM? I was under the impression that Ian didn’t stop him from going to the nearby ATM to make his transaction. Unless the ATM is in a different building or across town or something, that is pretty much the same thing in my opinion.

    “2nd Ian Freeman nor the Church are a bank. They’re not required to be registered with the federal government nor are they required to fill out the paperwork you are suggesting. There are circumstances where that maybe the case, but it wasn’t the case here. In face the very GENERIC letter they sent him, and was posted to the docket as “proof” of what they were saying (technically not evidence as I understand it for trial, but it was for the hearing’s arguments) contradicted what the government was saying and very clearly indicated he MAY, but also may not have to register. He probably, but not necessarily had to register, and his lawyers already had previously advised him he did NOT have to register, and the state itself ALSO said that he didn’t have to register at the state level either. Ian Freeman is a big part of the reason that New Hampshire changed the law on this and so you can’t claim he was “evading” anything. He put more work into complying with the law than most actually businesses that registered with the federal government.”

    I can’t find the letter on the docket. Mind sharing a link? What NH says probably isn’t relevant here as this is a federal case.

    “This depends on the circumstances of the business being conducted. In this case the church was NOT required to register the business with the federal government. Go read the fucking letter that was posted to the docket where the churches lawyer wrote to ANOTHER business that explained why the church was NOT required to do this.”

    I am skeptical that a BTC business would not be required to be registered with the IRS (even religious nonprofits have to register any business they might do.) I have no idea where this letter is, or even if it applies to the specifics of this case.

    “He didn’t run a church to shield assets. He literally was doing business with financial institutions which were reporting to the government. How fucking dumb do you have to be to believe that someone who KNOWINGLY was being investigated by the FBI thought that his activities weren’t being reported to the government? WTF do you think was the reason that the bank demanded a social security #? Your reasoning makes no sense what-so-ever. There was never an effort to shield assets because if he had it wouldn’t have been US banks he did business with and it would have been his social security number used to open the majority of those accounts.”

    Criminals do a lot of dumb things. Perhaps he thought he was untouchable due to his operations being under a church. He won’t be the first to think he is clever for running a fake church, and he won’t be the last. You should look up a recent example of the FDA shutting down the Genesis II Church of Health and Healing for selling bleach as a cure for COVID-19.

    “To conclude I want to point out how retarded this argument is given the fact the church pays taxes and this fight was already had in New Hampshire. The church isn’t NOT paying taxes. They didn’t shield anything from the government as is being purported by dumb asses who have no idea what was and wasn’t going on and didn’t even bother reading the responses or documents posted to the docket. If all you read was the biased article you’re lacking information. Go read the fucking docket or listen to one of the many people who have who’ve reported on the goings on of this case. There is MUCH more detail available than what is being reported on by mainstream reporters reporting on the gist of what the prosecution is claiming and lying about and then failing to appropriately include the lawyer’s responses.”

    Okay, they paid state and federal taxes. Did they file the appropriate forms to be a licensed money transmitting business?

    “The term “money services business” includes any person doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized business concern, in one or more of the following capacities:

    (1) Currency dealer or exchanger.
    (2) Check casher.
    (3) Issuer of traveler’s checks, money orders or stored value.
    (4) Seller or redeemer of traveler’s checks, money orders or stored value.
    (5) Money transmitter.
    (6) U.S. Postal Service.

    No activity threshold applies to the definition of money transmitter. Thus, a person who engages as a business in the transfer of funds is an MSB as a money transmitter, regardless of the amount of money transmission activity.”

    BTC is a currency right? Maybe not. After all, the IRS considers it a commodity. It’s really just a way to store value. Wait, what is that last term in line 4 – stored value. Hmm…

  24. “Did they file the appropriate forms to be a licensed money transmitting business?”

    gz, what if if they followed the advice of an attorney regarding what forms needed to be filled out? Still white collar crime?

  25. Any objective person reading all this would conclude that gloriouszorn is making a lot more sense than Jay and other Free Keene supporters who seem to ignore many relevant facts, swear, insult and make up conspiracy theories. Their opinion of what the law should be really doesn’t matter much. A few years ago, then Free Keener Chris Cantwell declared that he felt justified in killing any police officer the minute that they turned on their blue lights. That doesn’t make it a fact and he is now residing in a federal prison. I have no way of knowing whether Mr. Freeman is actually guilty or not. It is fine that he is free on bail. But, if he is guilty, he will also be sent to a federal prison.

  26. LFoD you wouldn’t know objectivism if it jumped up and hit you in the face. And you and Mr. Jumping Jacks here get gold and silver medals when it comes to “ignore many relevant facts, swear, insult and make up conspiracy theories.”

    If FreeKeene supporters swear, its to be expected when their friends are thrown into cages without any clear answers why.

    As for gz, he does better than most I’ll give him that, but an objective person would find that he either makes too many assumptions or is here with an agenda too.

    I would nominate the most “objective” post in this thread to a Mr. Noonefamous above. It’s the 5th comment so you can go find it.

  27. “I think the FBI keeping that pedo site up as a honeypot was very controversial, and they rightfully should be criticized.”

    So pervs download pedo and go to prison, FBI distributes pedo and should be “criticized?”

    Okay, so much for the rule of law…

    _Insert Billy Jack quote: “When policemen break the law, then there isn’t any law – just a fight for survival.”

  28. “gz, what if if they followed the advice of an attorney regarding what forms needed to be filled out? Still white collar crime?”

    Maybe. It sounds like it could be an affirmative defense, or at the very least a mitigating factor in sentencing. I suspect it will be more the latter than the former, but that will be for the court to decide. Usually ignorance of the law in no excuse.

  29. “So pervs download pedo and go to prison, FBI distributes pedo and should be “criticized?”

    Okay, so much for the rule of law…”

    It is my understanding that they didn’t distribute child porn themselves, but rather let the website that was already distributing child porn stay up for a couple of weeks for the purpose of catching pedos. Maybe that difference isn’t significant to you morally, but it is there.

    With that being said, I don’t think the FBI or any government agency should operate this way. It erodes public trust, and more importantly it enables pedophiles. They should be barred from doing stuff like that.

  30. I guess JJ … Will be disappointed if Ian doesn’t report that he got raped in there

  31. “2nd Ian Freeman nor the Church are a bank. They’re not required to be registered with the federal government nor are they required to fill out the paperwork you are suggesting. There are circumstances where that maybe the case, but it wasn’t the case here. In face the very GENERIC letter they sent him, and was posted to the docket as “proof” of what they were saying (technically not evidence as I understand it for trial, but it was for the hearing’s arguments) contradicted what the government was saying and very clearly indicated he MAY, but also may not have to register. He probably, but not necessarily had to register, and his lawyers already had previously advised him he did NOT have to register, and the state itself ALSO said that he didn’t have to register at the state level either. Ian Freeman is a big part of the reason that New Hampshire changed the law on this and so you can’t claim he was “evading” anything. He put more work into complying with the law than most actually businesses that registered with the federal government.”

    Okay, so I think I found the letters you were talking about. The from his lawyer was dated in 2017. The letter the feds sent was in 2018, and required a response within two weeks. Where is Ian’s response to that letter? For all he knows, regulations might have changed since then. His lawyer’s analysis excludes the stored value portions of the regulations, so either his analysis was wrong, or they were added after his letter.

  32. “Maybe. It sounds like it could be an affirmative defense, or at the very least a mitigating factor in sentencing. I suspect it will be more the latter than the former, but that will be for the court to decide. Usually ignorance of the law in no excuse.”

    I’ll take that “maybe” answer. The rest is irrelevant because the crime occurs before court.

    If one receives legal advice on how to do something the legal and correct way, and then follows it, I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’re not a white collar criminal. Maybe we are reaching the core of our disagreement, which is a sign of successful debate.

  33. gloriouszorn – Regarding what you said about Ian’s church. Their “church” was never granted tax free. exemption. Ian just believed he is above the law. That is why he is in the mess he is.

  34. “I’ll take that “maybe” answer. The rest is irrelevant because the crime occurs before court.

    If one receives legal advice on how to do something the legal and correct way, and then follows it, I’m going to go out on a limb and say they’re not a white collar criminal. Maybe we are reaching the core of our disagreement, which is a sign of successful debate.”

    Well, that was my opinion before I found the letters on the docket. Did Ian consult his attorney and respond to the letter the feds sent him? They wanted a response after two weeks. Did he respond at all within the 180 day period in which they were requiring him to get registered? Registration was free. What was his excuse? The previous letter was older and not addressed to the feds.

    This also doesn’t offer a defense to the other charges.

  35. “gloriouszorn – Regarding what you said about Ian’s church. Their “church” was never granted tax free. exemption. Ian just believed he is above the law. That is why he is in the mess he is.”

    What I don’t get is why he didn’t do a better job of hiding his fake church. Come on, people aren’t that dumb. It’s like he thought that once you say church the government runs away. No, the government can look at your organization and see if it is actually a place of worship.

    Although If what the prosecution says is true, it seems that he was just trying to fool the banks. Even they were getting skeptical though, which is why he apparently kept changing accounts and telling people to put church donation on the checks.

    This trial should be interesting.

  36. gz, I haven’t read the docket. But I can think of many reasons why someone wouldn’t respond to a letter from the feds that don’t indicate criminal activity. But criminal activity that seems to be a foregone conclusion in your head, so I’ll just leave it at that. Let’s hope the jury (if any) isn’t like that.

  37. “gz, I haven’t read the docket. But I can think of many reasons why someone wouldn’t respond to a letter from the feds that don’t indicate criminal activity. But criminal activity that seems to be a foregone conclusion in your head, so I’ll just leave it at that. Let’s hope the jury (if any) isn’t like that.”

    You should take a look when you get the chance

    https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159/gov.uscourts.nhd.56159.57.0_5.pdf

    It is hard to say that you didn’t know you were supposed to register when the government sends you a letter telling you that you need to register. I get not talking to the feds, but why didn’t he have his attorney respond to this letter?

    I don’t know that Ian has done these things. The prosecution hasn’t proven their case. Maybe they are making it up and are out to get a voluntaryist who just wants to live free of government. I don’t know why they would make it up only for it to go to trial and for him to get off, but I guess it is possible.

    If Ian did what they allege though, I won’t lose any sleep if he ends up in prison. If he had knowledge that scammers were using his service to defraud the old and vulnerable and he did nothing (as the prosecution says they have evidence for), that is deplorable. He’s not getting much sympathy from the general public either.

  38. “It is hard to say that you didn’t know you were supposed to register when the government sends you a letter telling you that you need to register. I get not talking to the feds, but why didn’t he have his attorney respond to this letter?”

    I don’t think its hard… Maybe Ian thought FINCen was wrong? Based on what the NH government and his atty told him. And he didn’t have his atty answer because he felt that it wasn’t his battle to fight? That it should be hashed out between the state and fed. Or any number of other reasons…

  39. Anonymous commenter “gloriouszorn” writes (May 24, 1253am):

    “While I think marijuana should be legal, Rich Paul was selling it. Was the FBI supposed to ignore that?”

    Short answer: Yes. (Assuming this is even true, and not just another one of the many slanders posted here by haters).

    Longer answer: FBI employees swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to criminalize people for selling a plant. Unless it was interstate commerce, the Feds have no authority to even *regulate* selling cannabis, let alone throw people in jail for it.

    Back when the U.S. government first imposed prohibition on the sale of something that provides a good-feeling “high”, by banning alcohol, prohibitionists were honest enough to acknowledge that the Constitution does not contain any authority to ban people from selling or using a substance, and that they needed a constitutional amendment to do that. So they passed the 18th Amendment, which outlawed most sales of alcohol in the U.S. until it was recognized as a bad law and repealed in 1933.

    There has never been any similar amendment allowing the federal government to criminalize people for selling cannabis or any other drug. Therefore the statutes against such sales are clearly unconstitutional and themselve illegal.

    So yes, if Rich Paul was selling cannabis, the FBI *absolutely were* supposed to ignore it. But of course they didn’t, even though the majority of Americans now say cannabis should be legal – They are the real criminals here, not Ian, Nobody, or any of the other members of the Crypto Six.

  40. “Longer answer: FBI employees swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution does not grant the federal government any authority to criminalize people for selling a plant.”

    Yes, it would appear as if it does.

    Recommended reading material:

    Article 1, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution
    NLRB v. Jones
    United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100 (1941)
    Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)

    Unless it was interstate commerce, the Feds have no authority to even *regulate* selling cannabis, let alone throw people in jail for it.”

    It appears that they do have the authority, given that they are doing it.

    “Therefore the statutes against such sales are clearly unconstitutional and themselve illegal.”

    Clearly not, seeing as SCOTUS disagrees.

Care to comment?