After Significant Delays Hostage Takers Release Ian From From Merrimack County Spiritual Retreat

Hostage Takers Release Ian From From Merrimack County Spiritual Retreat May 25th, 2021

On March 16, 2021 56 agents calling themselves the FBI raided as many as 19 properties and took six individuals hostage. One of those individuals was Ian Freeman, now infamously known as the ringleader of the Crypto6: A group of six who have been accused of going around and terrorizing the community with Bitcoin! Through his running of an unlicensed ‘Bitcoin exchange’ many New Hampshire residents have been tricked into adopting a dangerous technology that is a threat to the state.

The most dangerous of the six, Ian Freeman, was released in the early morning hours of May 25th to the horror of one U.S. Attorney Georgina MacDonald. MacDonald called Freeman a sophisticated cybercriminal and fears Freeman could tap significant gold, silver, and other crypto assets to flee.

Part of Ian Freeman’s modus operandi includes not asking customers personal questions about their business and profiting from an extortionate 10% fee. Legitimate businesses charge less and therefore “his release places many victims at risk of financial harm,” MacDonald said.

In the early morning hours of May 25th Ian Freeman and his associates met up at the Merrimack County Spiritual Retreat, undoubtedly to plan their next criminal move, to which end and how many more victims there will be nobody knows.

For video of this disturbing development check out the video evidence on IPFS.

 

 

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


49 Comments

  1. And while it should be obvious, I’ll point out that this article is using sarcasm which will probably be missed by many of the trolls here because they sound exactly like that.

    Jumping Jacks, you didn’t write this article did you? ;). Oh, and Keene going to throw another one of those city-wide BBQs? Maybe they can invite Ian to the next one 😉

  2. Once again this menace is on the streets. Fortunately, after the trial Minister Freeman will be in Federal prison for the rest of his life.

  3. “his release places many victims at risk of financial harm”

    Financial harm? Aww c’mon, it’s not like he was throwing stimulus checks into the crowd like loaves of bread.

  4. AntiFreeKeene case in point

  5. You freekeeners will put on any dog and pony show to try and twist this into the governments fault. Ian is the one who broke the law along with 5 other people.

    It wasn’t the FBI’s fault nor law enforcement.. Ian scammed all of you. It isn’t about bitcoin, it’s about how he didn’t follow the rules that everyone else has to follow when dealing with bitcoin. I’m sure Ian has placed some people in harms way. He lied to the other 5 crypto crooks. and now they are facing jail time and or large fines for following Ian like sheep asking no questions. “Following their leader blindly” Sounds a lot like what you freekeeners are always preaching to nonfreekeners.

    Ian put himself in this situation. He all but guaranteed a life of striped sunlight. He would be an easy target in prison. Maybe he can hook up with Ross Ulbricht.

  6. Oh Jacks, you and your imagination.

  7. I’ve seen lists like that before. insignificant laws that people break everyday because they are very old laws and no one wants to take the time to take them off the books.

    But that has nothing to do with Ian’s current situation.

  8. Jacks:

    “You freekeeners will put on any dog and pony show to try and twist this into the governments fault. Ian is the one who broke the law along with 5 other people.”

    It’s the fault of a terrible system and population that blindly vote for these criminals.

    “It wasn’t the FBI’s fault nor law enforcement.. ”

    It’s disingenuous to argue that the SS were just doing their job and not at least in part to blame for the genocide of world war II. Just doing your job is not a good excuse to quash the moral issue. Not everything is about legality and libertarians don’t practice law. We practice moral.

    “Ian scammed all of you. ”

    I’m failing to see how I was scammed. Ian never told anybody that they would profit from the purchase of Bitcoin and even routinely warned people that they should not acquire more crypto than they can afford to lose as the price does fluctuate (than again so does the US dollar, though mostly in a downward direction). However that also doesn’t mean that putting some amount of dollars into purchasing cryptos is a bad idea. It just means you need to get better at wealth management if you are going to benefit from crypto. Dabbling in crypto using smaller trivial amounts before going full on is therefore wise. I have seen first hand a man go overboard in his crypto dealings with Ian and get talked out of it. He very much appreciated that wisdom and a week later he did get out and lost a little bit of money, but not more than he could afford to lose. It was because of Ian and our communities concerns for other human beings that he and others have not been duped or gotten into bad financial straights. The reason he got into crypto? He saw the rest of us doing insanely well. In fact he had a good experience with it explicitly because he had been accepting it in his business for probably a couple years already. This just happened to be the first time he purchased crypto from Ian/the church.

    Another women came to a crypto meetup and wanted to invest her entire life savings in crypto. She was not a young women and did not have that much saved. Her $70,000 in life savings at almost 60 made it an extremely risky move. This is when Bitcoin was at its peak of $20,000. While her investment would still have paid off in the long run the risk is always present and thus we talked her down from investing all of her $70,000 to a portion of it. The women is actually able to retire comfortably today because of her crypto portfolio. The other day she had something in the ballpark of $200,000 and probably another $50,000 in cash. Some of her crypto predates the point in which she was going to buy $70,000. This women knows nothing about crypto and it’s entirely people helping her out of their good hearts that she has managed. In spite of Ian being in a cage the community has helped her figure out her retirement plan and not risk having the twiddle away her retirement years working because of an overly risky financial move. Now technically had she purchased $70,000 from Ian she would be wayyyy better off today. However the point is merely that Ian could have made a $3,500 from selling her Bitcoin. He did NOT take advantage of her or anyone else though and sold her a saner amount that had it tanked and she’d gotten out she would not have lost her entire or most of her retirement savings.

    “It isn’t about bitcoin, ”

    No it’s not. Didn’t you even say at one point it wasn’t about Bitcoin. It was about fraud? Or was that someone else? Either way it’s not about Bitcoin. It’s political persecution of a minority that the state doesn’t like because certain individuals in particular speak up against the state apparatus.

    “it’s about how he didn’t follow the rules that everyone else has to follow when dealing with bitcoin”

    Except nobody else had to follow those rules either if they ALSO did what Ian did. Ian nor the church broke the law at the federal or state level. There are others who may have broken the law, but those individuals didn’t take the steps Ian took to ensure that they were within a narrow strip of territory that made what they were doing technically legal. Now maybe the government wants to change this- I’m sure they do- but the courts are not the way to go about doing that. Congress is.

    “I’m sure Ian has placed some people in harms way. ”

    Yes, harm people partook in with their OWN knowledge because Ian placed warning signs up at his vending machines and took precautions to ensure that people knew what they were purchasing prior to his release of Bitcoin just like near EVERY OTHER SELLER of crypto on the internet. This not only protected the seller, but it also protected the buyer. Not only would Ian have required customers to write “I’m purchasing BTC” on their receipts, but he also did KYC. This is way beyond what is required. The governments position is that this is required, but that isn’t what the law states, and it’s now up to a court to rule on the issue. Just because nobody has taken a case to court nor has anybody else who attempted to be compliant refused to jump through the additional hoops under the governments interpretation of the law does not mean that the governments position is correct. To find out you sadly have to challenge the governments interpretation of the law and risk imprisonment, fines, and theft of your monies and assets thereof. To put oneself in this kind of danger for the benefit of all is a heroic deed.

    “He lied to the other 5 crypto crooks.”

    No he didn’t. We haven’t seen any evidence that he’s lied to anyone. First hand knowledge of his general behaviors and beliefs of which are widely known because of the public nature of his business, radio show, and processes evidence this claim that he’s lied as being “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Whatever evidence you might bring our collective knowledge will be that it is either misleading or it’s fabricated and false. It might be believable if it wasn’t so blatantly obvious how and where the money came from and his policies and procedures. This church was run like any honest charity and it did a lot of good in our community. Even people of other faiths benefited.

    “and now they are facing jail time and or large fines for following Ian like sheep ”

    I know first hand that Aria, Nobody, and undoubtedly Ian have said repeatedly that they are ready to sit in a cage for the foreseeable future if it comes to that. Most of the others are just caught up in the net, though undoubtedly hardened activists fully knowledgeable of the bullshit they’ve been ensnared in because of immoral government actors. Unlike others who get caught up in the nets though these individuals have the benefit of a community having their back. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have already been raised for the defense fund(s) and every one of these individuals has pleaded not guilty.

  9. “It’s disingenuous to argue that the SS were just doing their job and not at least in part to blame for the genocide of world war II. Just doing your job is not a good excuse to quash the moral issue. Not everything is about legality and libertarians don’t practice law. We practice moral.”

    It’s not immoral to arrest people that aid and abet scammers.

    “Except nobody else had to follow those rules either if they ALSO did what Ian did. Ian nor the church broke the law at the federal or state level. There are others who may have broken the law, but those individuals didn’t take the steps Ian took to ensure that they were within a narrow strip of territory that made what they were doing technically legal. Now maybe the government wants to change this- I’m sure they do- but the courts are not the way to go about doing that. Congress is.”

    Clearly the U.S. government disagrees with you that Ian broke the law. Looks like Ian wasn’t as good as maneuvering around the law as he or you thought.

    “No it’s not. Didn’t you even say at one point it wasn’t about Bitcoin. It was about fraud? Or was that someone else? Either way it’s not about Bitcoin. It’s political persecution of a minority that the state doesn’t like because certain individuals in particular speak up against the state apparatus.”

    It’s about fraud if you read the docket. Proof needed for your claim at the end. Ian was allowed to spread his political ideology for years and years without it being an issue.

    “Not only would Ian have required customers to write “I’m purchasing BTC” on their receipts, but he also did KYC.”

    How can you comply with Know Your Customer regulations if you don’t collect any information about them or their transactions? Why did he disable anti-money laundering controls that are turned on by default? Why did he insist that his customers write “church donation” on the checks when they weren’t trying to donate to a church?

    Have you read the relevant regulation? It absolutely states that the type of business he should be running needs to be registered.

    “I know first hand that Aria, Nobody, and undoubtedly Ian have said repeatedly that they are ready to sit in a cage for the foreseeable future if it comes to that.”

    What people say and what people do are two different things. We’ll see though.

  10. What are the names of the individual(s) who suffered loss harm or injury due to Ian’s actions? Crickets.

  11. “What are the names of the individual(s) who suffered loss harm or injury due to Ian’s actions? Crickets.”

    Andy, the trial hasn’t happened yet. I’m sure the prosecution will bring forward witnesses to prove the government’s case.

  12. gloriouszorn:

    “It’s not immoral to arrest people that aid and abet scammers. ”

    As was already stated that isn’t what happened. Ian was no more aiding and abetting of scammers than was the government or banks thereof. This isn’t that hard to understand. Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it true. Ian had no obligation anyway to thwart scammers. He offered a legitimate service and there is no evidence nor has the prosecution presented any evidence to suggest otherwise. The only people who think otherwise are morons who have no idea what Ian was or wasn’t doing or otherwise have some other political agenda to oust a man speaking the truth.

    “Clearly the U.S. government disagrees with you that Ian broke the law. Looks like Ian wasn’t as good as maneuvering around the law as he or you thought.”

    For christ sake you are dumb. Obviously the government thinks I’m wrong, or at least wants to send a message and will go to any extent to send it, and the later seems to be more likely than not given what we’ve heard from the prosecutor thus far. Just because the government says it doesn’t make it true. You’re literally taking the word of liars and thieves and it’s already been pointed out some of these blatant lies they were telling to secure Ian’s pre-trial confinement. Not only isn’t it illegal to profit (this is a capitalist country after all), but he wasn’t even charging the “high fees” which they were arguing he was able to get away with because of the enablement of scammers when they knew full well the exact opposite was the case. Those representing the government aren’t as retarded as they look. The prosecutor knew full well Ian was charging less than “legitimate” vending machine operators yet had no problem making the false claim he was scamming people because he charged “too high” a fee. His fees were in the 5-10% range and were 8% for the vending machines for the longest of time which were lower than the ANY (“legitimate” or otherwise) competing vending machine.

    “It’s about fraud if you read the docket. Proof needed for your claim at the end.”

    Are you so dense as to not be able to see through the lies? The fraud is just the claim, not the motivation for the claim.

    “Ian was allowed to spread his political ideology for years and years without it being an issue.”

    Right, so you think the FBI was doing the DEA’s work, but only with these individuals here because they just felt like it cause drugs are bad? The FBI is not the DEA. The DEA’s job is drugs. Local cops, state cops, sure. FBI? WTF are you smoking. The FBI orchestrated a buy from a small time drug dealer and showed up prior to the sting operation. The FBI was waiting for Rich Paul in the police station not because of drugs, but because they wanted to blackmail him in an effort to wear a wire into an activist center. Are you that fucking dumb to think the FBI’s normal operations are to bust small time drug dealers in rural New Hampshire?

    What about the 2nd time round when the FB slandered Ian’s name on non-existent child porn? Was that just the FBI’s incompetence? How many times does a radio show and a core group of activists associated with it have to be targeted by the FBI before you’d consider them to be a government target? And that’s just the FBI!

    Now it’s “Bitcoin” even though Ian went wayyyyyy out of the way to ensure compliance and even the very evidence presented and judge agreed it contracted the prosecutors claims. Lets not forget it’s not just the FBI going after Ian but dozens of different agencies teaming up. No, this isn’t about Bitcoin. This is about a man they want to put away permanently, but also given us some resemblance of a show trial.

    Other government agencies have also targeted Ian over mundane shit- and lied to get warrants to enter. Do you remember the time they raided the Keene Activist Center over a lie claiming it was a “boarding house” even though it was neither than nor did they find any real crime? How fucked up and clearly non-crimes or so petty as to not normally be pursued do they they have to get before you’ll see things how they actually are? Ohh right getting a warrant rather than setting up a date and time with a landlord is the normal course of action to identify dead batteries in a smoke alarm. Yea- that’s what they found and charged em with. Totally normal! Government doesn’t work that way normally.

    “How can you comply with Know Your Customer regulations if you don’t collect any information about them or their transactions?”

    For Bitcoin every transaction is recorded on the blockchain you moron and there was additional information recorded about purchasers for those who bought crypto via bank wire.

    There were TWO different actions (actually more than two) that were done to ensure people did not unknowingly becomes victims of scams. One was the big ass signs telling people about the potential to be scammed (vending machines) and two having to write “I AM BUYING BTC” on the receipt from the deposit slips for remote purchases. There was ADDITIONAL KYC that was conducted above and beyond this for customers who purchased via bank wire.

    “Why did he disable anti-money laundering controls that are turned on by default?”

    That isn’t how it works. This was an outright lie. There are different configurations and setting that a purchaser can configure in an effort to comply with regulations in different jurisdictions. What is required for New York is not necessarily required in New Hampshire. There are some things that MAY be required in every state because of federal rules, but it depends on how the machine is configured. Ian has configured the machine to ensure he did NOT have to comply with said rules therefore its disingenuous to claim he “disabled” KYC on the vending machines. That just isn’t how that works. It’s not an on/off switch. Not to mention that not all of the machines the church owned were purchased new. To say he “disabled” something implies he was the one who configured and set it up. There is zero evidence to show he is the one who did that. There is zero evidence to show he even was the sole person who managed the vending machines. In fact the FBI already knows he’s not the only person involved and the FBI has NOT arrested other people involved. The reason? Don’t ask me. It may be down to the FBI intending to blackmail those individuals into testifying against Ian even though Ian hasn’t committed a crime. It’s hard to imagine that their testimony will help lead to a conviction given it’ll only ever reveal short of the FBI coercing them to lie on the stand that the operations were legal.

    “Why did he insist that his customers write ‘church donation’ on the checks when they weren’t trying to donate to a church?

    I have no idea if that is the prosecution manipulating the truth, and those were straight up donations, or simply all proceeds being considered donations given they were to the church. You are quibbling over the definition of the word “donation” and regardless of its common, legal, or other definition, that doesn’t prove fraud or deceit. The monies were of a charitable nature and went to church coffers. Either way it’s hard to claim someone was being scammed if they wrote it was a donation somewhere.

    “Have you read the relevant regulation? It absolutely states that the type of business he should be running needs to be registered. ”

    Yes, and the “regulations” or advice thereof also contradicted itself. They actually introduced more questions than they answered. The law is clear. He’s not guilty of the legal crimes charged regardless of what the outcome of this case is. The court is not made up of honest people and are little more than show trials to appease the public and insure compliance of the masses.

    “What people say and what people do are two different things. We’ll see though.”

    Ha- considering that Ian and Nobody have already spent time in a cage- and did prior to these raids for political reasons evidence the statement being true. Aria technically spent some amount of time in a cage as did others, but no doubt it’s not unlikely some or all will spend more time in a cage over this.

  13. Andy:

    “What are the names of the individual(s) who suffered loss harm or injury due to Ian’s actions? Crickets.”

    There were no victims of Ian. There may have been victims who bought Bitcoin from the church’s machines and/or through other means. The victims however were in part to blame for continuing to purchase cryptocurrency after they were informed of the risks of doing so with the intent to then send cryptocurrency to third parties of whom they did not know. The machines clearly said that you were NOT permitted to send cryptocurrency to a wallet you did not control. Until that user sent cryptocurrency to a scammer from their own wallet there was no scam. It’s impossible for Ian or the church to be responsible for what a user does after receiving their crypto. The church does not control that. Neither church, nor government, nor a bank can stop a dumb ass victim from acquiring cash or crypto and then doing something stupid with it and if Ian or the church are liable than so would EVERY bank who ever handed cash out to a person whom was then convinced to do something stupid with it.

  14. “As was already stated that isn’t what happened. Ian was no more aiding and abetting of scammers than was the government or banks thereof. This isn’t that hard to understand.”

    That’s what the prosecution alleges.

    Just because someone claims something doesn’t make it true.

    Of course. The prosecution will need to prove it. That’s what due process is all about.

    “Ian had no obligation anyway to thwart scammers.”

    Legally? Maybe, maybe not. The court will decide that. Morally? If he had knowledge that these people were being scammed and he just let it happen, then I think that is a despicable action.

    ” He offered a legitimate service and there is no evidence nor has the prosecution presented any evidence to suggest otherwise.”

    Well, the prosecution hasn’t presented any evidence because the trial hasn’t happened yet. First they make allegations, then they provide evidence of those allegations to a judge or jury during trial. That is how the judicial system works. You can’t throw up your hands and say there is no evidence when the prosecution has yet to present the evidence.

  15. “For christ sake you are dumb.”

    Rude.

    “Obviously the government thinks I’m wrong, or at least wants to send a message and will go to any extent to send it, and the later seems to be more likely than not given what we’ve heard from the prosecutor thus far.”

    Huh? How do you figure?

    “Just because the government says it doesn’t make it true. You’re literally taking the word of liars and thieves and it’s already been pointed out some of these blatant lies they were telling to secure Ian’s pre-trial confinement.”

    I think those allegations are compelling, yes. I don’t have any reason to believe the NH district prosecutor is a liar or thief.

    ” Not only isn’t it illegal to profit (this is a capitalist country after all), but he wasn’t even charging the “high fees” which they were arguing he was able to get away with because of the enablement of scammers when they knew full well the exact opposite was the case. Those representing the government aren’t as retarded as they look. The prosecutor knew full well Ian was charging less than “legitimate” vending machine operators yet had no problem making the false claim he was scamming people because he charged “too high” a fee. His fees were in the 5-10% range and were 8% for the vending machines for the longest of time which were lower than the ANY (“legitimate” or otherwise) competing vending machine.”

    I don’t really know what the prosecutor knows, I only know what they say. Those fees are high, but they do seem to be somewhat in line with the BTC machines around here, I’ll give you that. I don’t think the fee amount is the crux of the issue though, but rather if he knew scammers were using his services. Also, I still don’t understand why he didn’t register his business when they sent him the letter stating that he had to. Nor do I understand why he was playing games with opening and closing bank accounts.

    “Are you so dense as to not be able to see through the lies? The fraud is just the claim, not the motivation for the claim.”

    This isn’t an argument. It’s also not proof.

    “Right, so you think the FBI was doing the DEA’s work, but only with these individuals here because they just felt like it cause drugs are bad? The FBI is not the DEA. The DEA’s job is drugs. Local cops, state cops, sure. FBI? WTF are you smoking. The FBI orchestrated a buy from a small time drug dealer and showed up prior to the sting operation. The FBI was waiting for Rich Paul in the police station not because of drugs, but because they wanted to blackmail him in an effort to wear a wire into an activist center. Are you that fucking dumb to think the FBI’s normal operations are to bust small time drug dealers in rural New Hampshire?”

    Yes, the FBI and DEA can work together on cases. There is no reason why they can’t. Ian and company have been openly flouting laws for years. Is the FBI supposed to ignore that? Maybe they had some reason to believe Ian and company were engaged in illegal activity, but they needed more proof. They are allowed to investigate potential crimes. How does this prove they targeted him for his beliefs?

    “What about the 2nd time round when the FB slandered Ian’s name on non-existent child porn? Was that just the FBI’s incompetence? How many times does a radio show and a core group of activists associated with it have to be targeted by the FBI before you’d consider them to be a government target? And that’s just the FBI!”

    Somebody at that residence went to that child porn website. I would say the FBI is incompetent to the extent that they were unable to pin down who did it. Still not sure that this proves anything.

    “Now it’s “Bitcoin” even though Ian went wayyyyyy out of the way to ensure compliance and even the very evidence presented and judge agreed it contracted the prosecutors claims. Lets not forget it’s not just the FBI going after Ian but dozens of different agencies teaming up. No, this isn’t about Bitcoin. This is about a man they want to put away permanently, but also given us some resemblance of a show trial.”

    Why did he ignore the letter sent to him stating that he needed to register? Why did he then fail to register? Is that what wayyyy out of the way compliance looks like?

    “Other government agencies have also targeted Ian over mundane shit- and lied to get warrants to enter. Do you remember the time they raided the Keene Activist Center over a lie claiming it was a “boarding house” even though it was neither than nor did they find any real crime?

    How fucked up and clearly non-crimes or so petty as to not normally be pursued do they they have to get before you’ll see things how they actually are? Ohh right getting a warrant rather than setting up a date and time with a landlord is the normal course of action to identify dead batteries in a smoke alarm. Yea- that’s what they found and charged em with. Totally normal! Government doesn’t work that way normally.”

    This has nothing to do with the feds.

  16. “For Bitcoin every transaction is recorded on the blockchain you moron and there was additional information recorded about purchasers for those who bought crypto via bank wire.”

    That transaction record tells us nothing of the customer or the circumstances surrounding the transaction.

    “There were TWO different actions (actually more than two) that were done to ensure people did not unknowingly becomes victims of scams. One was the big ass signs telling people about the potential to be scammed (vending machines) and two having to write “I AM BUYING BTC” on the receipt from the deposit slips for remote purchases.

    That’s great. I’m not sure how the last action helps stop a scam though.

    “There was ADDITIONAL KYC that was conducted above and beyond this for customers who purchased via bank wire.”

    Like?

    That isn’t how it works. This was an outright lie. There are different configurations and setting that a purchaser can configure in an effort to comply with regulations in different jurisdictions. What is required for New York is not necessarily required in New Hampshire. There are some things that MAY be required in every state because of federal rules, but it depends on how the machine is configured. Ian has configured the machine to ensure he did NOT have to comply with said rules therefore its disingenuous to claim he “disabled” KYC on the vending machines. That just isn’t how that works. It’s not an on/off switch. Not to mention that not all of the machines the church owned were purchased new. To say he “disabled” something implies he was the one who configured and set it up. There is zero evidence to show he is the one who did that. There is zero evidence to show he even was the sole person who managed the vending machines.

    Okay. I’ll take your word for it I guess about how the machines operate. We’ll see how this shakes out in trial.

    In fact the FBI already knows he’s not the only person involved and the FBI has NOT arrested other people involved. The reason? Don’t ask me. It may be down to the FBI intending to blackmail those individuals into testifying against Ian even though Ian hasn’t committed a crime. It’s hard to imagine that their testimony will help lead to a conviction given it’ll only ever reveal short of the FBI coercing them to lie on the stand that the operations were legal.

    Maybe, or maybe they have enough evidence to show what they are claiming.

    “I have no idea if that is the prosecution manipulating the truth, and those were straight up donations, or simply all proceeds being considered donations given they were to the church. You are quibbling over the definition of the word “donation” and regardless of its common, legal, or other definition, that doesn’t prove fraud or deceit. The monies were of a charitable nature and went to church coffers. Either way it’s hard to claim someone was being scammed if they wrote it was a donation somewhere.”

    Can we be genuine here? It’s not a real church. Nobody believes it is a real church. He’s not fooling anyone. I know he wants the public to believe it is, but it is not. You can’t just call any type of business a church and then ignore all of the regulations. Donating a token amount to charity doesn’t count. The government isn’t that stupid. It sounds like he was calling transaction fees donations so banks would continue to do business with him. That falls in the realm of fraud and deceit.

    “Yes, and the “regulations” or advice thereof also contradicted itself. They actually introduced more questions than they answered. The law is clear.”

    The law is clear, and yet the regulations are contradictory? The regulations are part of the law. I think you might be a bit contradictory here.

    “He’s not guilty of the legal crimes charged regardless of what the outcome of this case is. ”

    And people here are claiming that I have a bias. I at least concede that Ian could be innocent, although it looks unlikely based on what I’ve read.

    The court is not made up of honest people and are little more than show trials to appease the public and insure compliance of the masses.”

    More conspiracy theory. Let me know if you find any supporting evidence.

  17. “Somebody at that residence went to that child porn website.”

    Proof needed.

    “It’s not a real church.”

    Whether it was a real church would depend on one’s definition of a real church. What definition are you going by, gz?

  18. “Proof needed.”

    The FBI had data from their honeypot that showed that somebody at that address accessed the site, which is why they were able to obtain a search warrant.

    “Whether it was a real church would depend on one’s definition of a real church. What definition are you going by, gz?”

    I am satisfied by the 14-15 point analysis the IRS uses to determine whether or not an entity is a church, which I believe was based on the legal opinion from De La Salle Institute v. United States (Incidentally, this was a case where they found that the unrelated winery business was not exempt from taxes and regulation. Does that sound familiar?)

    For your convenience: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/churches-defined

  19. “The FBI had data from their honeypot that showed that somebody at that address accessed the site, which is why they were able to obtain a search warrant.”

    Ah I see. Guilty until proven innocent.

    “I am satisfied by the 14-15 point analysis the IRS uses to determine whether or not an entity is a church,”

    I see. I thought you asked to be genuine here. Okay then, which of those 15 points do you think Ian violated?

  20. Shire Free Church violated*

  21. “Ah I see. Guilty until proven innocent.”

    Innocent until proven guilty applies to individuals, not material facts. IP addresses don’t spontaneously appear in IP logs. Everyone was presumed innocent because they didn’t have further evidence on specifically who accessed the site.

    “I see. I thought you asked to be genuine here. Okay then, which of those 15 points do you think Ian violated?”

    I think defining what constitutes a church is a challenge, as it is both a cultural product with a cultural meaning, much like art. The IRS and the courts did a good job of coming up with something that is also flexible enough to consider nonconventional religious thought, which is really important to uphold people’s 1st amendment rights.

    With that being said, I think Ian has failed pretty much all of them. There are some elements that are sort of fulfilled, but not in a meaningful way. Putting up a WordPress page, making Facebook posts about grocery store logistics, and calling yourself minister isn’t sufficient enough in my book. I think most people in Keene agree. The city and the state courts certainly did (albeit I am not aware of the exact criteria they used.)

  22. “Innocent until proven guilty applies to individuals, not material facts.”

    Okay, and if we’re going to accept something as material fact, for me its going to have to be more than just the FBI said so and obtained a search warrant. Did anyone get a chance to analyze the FBI’s data and poke holes in it?

    “I think defining what constitutes a church is a challenge, as it is both a cultural product with a cultural meaning, much like art.”

    Now we’re getting somewhere. And I think Ian passed pretty much all of of those 15 points. So where are we going to go for a final arbiter? The IRS is about the last place I’d go to make a determination about something like that, nor is it their job.

  23. LRN-freeman – No, it’s Ian’s fault he is where he is. Not the system, nor anyone else. He did it all by himself. Being as arrogant as Ian is, he thought he was above the law.

    Comparing the SS in WWII to this situation is ridiculous. The Jews did nothing wrong. They are a race of people who were singled out and experience a genocide. . Comparing Ian’s crimes to that is insulting and stupid.

    If Ian was to right about what he was doing, why aren’t there more people do what he did? Because the typical population are able to follow the law with no problem.

  24. No victim, no crime.

  25. “Okay, and if we’re going to accept something as material fact, for me its going to have to be more than just the FBI said so and obtained a search warrant. Did anyone get a chance to analyze the FBI’s data and poke holes in it?”

    I am disinterested in hunting down a multiple year old search warrant, but if you’d like to do so by all means. I don’t have any reason to believe the FBI is lying. If they were willing to lie to go after Ian, don’t you think that they would go a step further and just fabricate evidence on his computer?

    “Now we’re getting somewhere. And I think Ian passed pretty much all of of those 15 points. So where are we going to go for a final arbiter? The IRS is about the last place I’d go to make a determination about something like that, nor is it their job.”

    Who is going to be the final arbiter? Well, I guess you just found out why we have courts in society. They’ve already decided what constitutes a church decades ago. This isn’t cutting edge jurisprudence. All the IRS did was just take the criteria written across multiple cases and distilled it down into an easily digestible format.

    As to you thinking that Ian passed all of those points – were you just posing a hypothetical? There is no way that he passes all of those points. Is that honestly what you think?

  26. “No victim, no crime.”

    No woman, no cry.

  27. “Minister” Freeman is going to spend the rest of his useless life in federal prison getting raped by niggers.

  28. ““Minister” Freeman is going to spend the rest of his useless life in federal prison getting raped by niggers.”

    That’s a pretty nasty thing to say. =(

  29. Being a money laundering pedophile is a pretty nasty thing to be. =(

  30. I’ve got to say, hearing about Ian in jail again has brought back a lot of memories of when I lived in Keene. What a beautiful place. Looks like a lot of the early Free Keeners are no longer with you all.

  31. “I don’t have any reason to believe the FBI is lying.”

    That’s okay just as long as we’re not calling their claims material fact and saying there’s proof.

    “As to you thinking that Ian passed all of those points – were you just posing a hypothetical? There is no way that he passes all of those points. Is that honestly what you think?”

    It is honestly what I think. Should we go through them one by one? Before we do, let me tell you a story.

    I’ve been to church services held at truck stops. The number of people in attendance may have been fewer than the numbers Ian typically draws, but I tell you you’ll never find such a devout group of believers!

    And if that church had a bitcoin atm on the outside, and that atm happened to be that church’s main source of income, and then yes I would still consider it a church. Now I’m no tax attorney and wouldn’t know how to do that legally, so I’d hope that church would consult an atty like Ian did so they wouldn’t get into trouble.

    In Ian’s case, it seems he was going to get into trouble no matter what he did.
    Its like if highway patrol wants to pull you over they’re going to find some pretense to do it. Pretty much that but on a larger scale. Oh but that’s conspiracy theory right? Okay then, I know you are but what am I?

  32. “That’s okay just as long as we’re not calling their claims material fact and saying there’s proof.”

    Fair enough. I suppose if I cared enough I’d hunt down the warrant. I just want to note that there is also no proof that the FBI had some plot to get Ian because he is an outspoken activist, either.

    “It is honestly what I think. Should we go through them one by one?”

    I believe you are being disingenuous. You just said that you honestly believe that Ian’s church meets all of the factors the IRS uses to determine if an organization is a church. Keep in mind by the way that all of these criteria do not have to be met for an organization to be regarded as a church, and that many churches do not meet all of the factors.

    But since you are sure that Ian’s church meets all of the factors, let’s start with the most absurd:

    How many kids attend the Shire Free Church Sunday school, and what time does it start?

    “I’ve been to church services held at truck stops. The number of people in attendance may have been fewer than the numbers Ian typically draws, but I tell you you’ll never find such a devout group of believers!”

    Great! I believe you. I won’t argue that a church can have unconventional beliefs or hold service in unconventional places. When does the Shire Free Church hold service to the public?

    “And if that church had a bitcoin atm on the outside, and that atm happened to be that church’s main source of income, and then yes I would still consider it a church. Now I’m no tax attorney and wouldn’t know how to do that legally, so I’d hope that church would consult an atty like Ian did so they wouldn’t get into trouble.”

    Donations should be a church’s main source of income, not transaction fees.

    “In Ian’s case, it seems he was going to get into trouble no matter what he did. Its like if highway patrol wants to pull you over they’re going to find some pretense to do it. Pretty much that but on a larger scale. Oh but that’s conspiracy theory right? Okay then, I know you are but what am I?”

    Well, yes, that sounds like something for which you have no proof. It could be that Ian keeps getting into trouble because he keeps committing crimes.

  33. “Well, I guess you just found out why we have courts in society.”

    No sorry its really not. And you’re missing the point. Those 15 points are still subject to interpretation, so not really useful as a premise from which to make any claims.

  34. “No sorry its really not. And you’re missing the point. Those 15 points are still subject to interpretation, so not really useful as a premise from which to make any claims.”

    So what is your point, and what is the solution to this issue? Should we give up, throw up our hands and call everything a church?

    At some point in the process critical thinking and good judgement needs to come into play. This is what the courts do.

  35. Now now gz, I never said I was sure. I said I think they passed just about all of those points. This was in contrast to you saying you think they failed just about all of them. So unless you want to be subjected to all the same drilling of supposed intimate knowledge on the goings-ons at Shire Free Church, I think we can declare this one a stalemate?

  36. “So what is your point, and what is the solution to this issue? Should we give up, throw up our hands and call everything a church?”

    How bout recognize the question of whether something is a church or not is a personal question for each person to answer for themselves. And if they want help, they can decide where to look for it. And that defining a church for tax purposes is a different issue entirely— theres actual church, determined by me, and there’s tax status church, determined by the IRS. Big difference, that often overlap, often not.

    For bonus points, recognize that any attemps by a central authority to define it for us causes more harm than good. I know, we’re not there yet 😉

  37. “Now now gz, I never said I was sure. I said I think they passed just about all of those points. This was in contrast to you saying you think they failed just about all of them. So unless you want to be subjected to all the same drilling of supposed intimate knowledge on the goings-ons at Shire Free Church, I think we can declare this one a stalemate?”

    I never claimed to know the entire workings of the church. Based on what I know however, I’m confident enough to say that it is not a church.

    “How bout recognize the question of whether something is a church or not is a personal question for each person to answer for themselves. And if they want help, they can decide where to look for it. And that defining a church for tax purposes is a different issue entirely— theres actual church, determined by me, and there’s tax status church, determined by the IRS. Big difference, that often overlap, often not.”

    Well, I suspect this is the closest we are going to get to an agreement.

    I do not think the definition of a church is a personal question. A person’s religion may be, but not a church. It is difficult to define, but it is not impossible. I also believe that most people would view Ian’s church as illegitimate. I’m not even really convinced that you believe it.

    “For bonus points, recognize that any attempts by a central authority to define it for us causes more harm than good. I know, we’re not there yet”

    I don’t agree with this statement. There are many people that try to avoid paying taxes and following regulations by creating a sham church. One of the most recent examples of that was the previously mentioned fraudsters behind Genesis II Church of Health and Healing, which was selling bleach as a cure for COVID-19 under the guise of religious healing. If Ian is found to have knowingly aided and abetted scammers, he’ll be the second example I use.

  38. “It is difficult to define, but it is not impossible.”

    “The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code.” – link from the IRS you shared.

    “I also believe that most people would view Ian’s church as illegitimate.”

    Most people don’t know enough about Ian’s church to make that determination.
    Neither would a judge who knows less about it than the church’s actual members.

  39. “The term church is found, but not specifically defined, in the Internal Revenue Code.” – link from the IRS you shared.

    “Most people don’t know enough about Ian’s church to make that determination. Neither would a judge who knows less about it than the church’s actual members.”

    Right, because a church it is a cultural object with cultural meaning, which makes it difficult to define in a concise couple sentence definition, especially if we are to be fair to unorthodox churches. By the way, his church doesn’t count if we consider common dictionary definitions either, which are typically more narrowly defined. To determine if an organization is a church one has to assess whether it fits the criteria. There is nothing magic about this. Is Ian’s house a public place of worship, or not? I see a single wordpress page that wants me to sign his political declaration and a facebook page with posts about bitcoin and grocery stores. When does the congregation meet? What services at this supposed church are open to the public or even members? Where is the contact information for the church?

    If this was brought before a judge, the judge would ask Ian about the church. If Ian would fail to inform the judge adequately about activities that make the church an actual church, then that would be no one’s fault but his own. The fact that both the city and NH courts have failed to recognize his church is very telling, by the way. This sounds like it has already been hashed out. It’s disappointing that you can’t see this, but I guess we are at that stalemate now.

  40. Well, first, I am shocked that a guy who claims to run drug rehabilitation clinics and is a doctoral candidate would throw out the “n” word this way. It is also not how the federal prison system works. Prisoners are sent to minimum, low, medium, or maximum security prisons. As a non-violent offender, Mr. Freeman would likely be sent to a low or minimum security prison, if convicted. These are not dangerous places. Admittedly, maximum or medium security prisons are far more dangerous. I have never called Mr. Freeman a pedophile and doubt that he is one. However, his defense of legal sex between young children and adults is very disturbing has been one of his biggest mistakes, both with us in the Keene community and even with the Free State Project.

  41. gloriouszorn – I never wrote the post that Freeman minister was going to be raped by n—–ers

    It’s the typical freekeener response when what you say in a previous post is true and they can’t respond to it.

  42. Live Free or Die – Never said such a thing. It’s just another idiot freekeener maybe even you impersonating me because they have no personality of their own.

  43. “I have never called Mr. Freeman a pedophile and doubt that he is one. However, his defense of legal sex between young children and adults is very disturbing has been one of his biggest mistakes, both with us in the Keene community and even with the Free State Project.”

    One of Ian’s girlfriends, Renee, was 14 when he started dating her (he was in his thirties at the time.) Now you know. He is clearly into young girls. Even Bonnie is pretty young, although at least she is an adult.

  44. “gloriouszorn – I never wrote the post that Freeman minister was going to be raped by n—–ers”

    It did seem a bit out of character for you to say that. I guess that is the problem of an anonymous platform.

  45. So what’s going on with Rich (nobody) Paul? Is Ian going to bail him out?

  46. “So what’s going on with Rich (nobody) Paul? Is Ian going to bail him out?”

    Looks like he requested a detention hearing on Tuesday. I think it is set for June 8th?

  47. gloriouszorn – Thank you for the update

Care to comment?