“Crypto Six” Become Two as Feds Claim Banks as “Victims”, Bring More Charges

Mr Bitcoin & Bitcoin Gandhi Visit Federal Reserve Bank Of Boston In Support Of The Crypto6

The last month has been a busy one in the “Crypto Six” case. First, three of the Six took felony “wire fraud” plea deals after prosecutors threatened to load them up with even more victimless “crime” charges. Even though no one was actually defrauded out of any money or property, the three – Renee and Andy Spinella and Nobody – agreed to become federal felons, reluctantly admitting guilt to one count each of “wire fraud”, despite no one actually being defrauded out of money or property.

Unfortunately, even though the three are completely peaceful, honest people, now they will be saddled with felony convictions that makes them look dishonest. It’s understandable though, why they would take such a plea. The federal gang is a scary bunch of people and they know how to intimidate. Even when a defendant did nothing wrong, that doesn’t mean a jury will do the right thing and set the accused free. The supermajority of people charged criminally at the state or federal level will take the plea deal, simply because they see it as a way to make their suffering end. Or at least, so it seems in the moment. While it may end the current prosecution, it sets them up for failure later if they are ever arrested again, as then they have a felony conviction, so the next sentence will be even harder.

Though federal juries have surprisingly issued some “not guilty” verdicts in recent years, like the verdicts in the Michigan governor “kidnapping” cases and the Bundy ranch cases, generally juries are pretty obedient to the state, so it’s highly risky to take a case to trial. Plus, federal cases are frequently biased against the defense, like that of Ross Ulbricht, where they weren’t able to call many witnesses or make the case they wanted. So, I don’t blame my friends for admitting to “crimes” they didn’t commit just so they can have some predictability as to what is coming next for them. Nobody is expecting a verdict of “time served” for the six months he did behind bars last year prior to being granted bail in September. Renee is facing up to 18 months in prison and Andy is expecting some amount of probation, or so I hear. I’m still not allowed to speak with my friends under my bail conditions. Their sentencing dates are in late July.

The fourth of the Crypto Six, Colleen Rietmann, co-owner of Mighty Moose Mart in Keene, has had her charges dropped. Perhaps the feds did not want to be seen prosecuting a grandmother in front of a jury at the same time as they are trying to allege that Aria DiMezzo and I were victimizing elderly women caught in romance scams online.

Bitcoin NH License Plate

NH’s Unmatched Bitcoin Community

After Aria and I refused to take the feds’ plea offer, since we’ve done nothing wrong, they followed through on their threat and brought a bunch of new charges against us in what is called a “superseding indictment”. If convicted of all the counts against me, I face up to 420 years in prison. All for “crimes” with no victim. Oh wait, the feds also filed something called an “Organizational Victim Statement”, and according to the attachment, they are claiming we have victimized… the banks! The list includes Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, TD Bank, and many other big banks and credit unions.

Curiously, during one of the plea deal hearings this month, the prosecutors admitted that there were no damages to the “victims”, so they couldn’t ask for any restitution as part of the sentencing. How exactly then were these banks “victimized” by fraud if no money or property was lost? I guess we’ll find out when the case goes to trial this November. As Nobody put it, he has been convicted of “contempt of bank”. Apparently it’s felony charges with up to 30 years in prison for anyone who hurts the banks’ feelings in the “free” country of America.

While it’s no fun to be under highly restrictive bail conditions – I have an ankle monitor on for nearly a year now – at least now all the feds’ cards are finally laid on the table and now we can construct our defense.

The Crypto Six case is an attack on our freedoms. It is an attack against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, libertarian activists in New Hampshire, and against cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. While we are not the first to be accused of victimless “crimes” for spreading Bitcoin, nearly all of those so accused in the past have taken the plea deals, out of fear for what could happen. Aria and I are going to trial and so the feds will actually have to put on their case for the first time, in a desperate attempt to prop up the ever-inflating US Dollar and the banking cartel. Bitcoin is not a crime!

Now you can subscribe to Free Keene via email!

Don't miss a single post!


  1. So lying to banks about what you are doing with the account isn’t fraud?

    I agree most of this is victimless and who cares about banks, AND you were kindof cornered into this by government bs, but it sounds like the purpose of the bank accounts was misrepresented.

  2. The FBI (like the CIA) should be eliminated as they arrest and kill innocent people and never go after the real high up criminals in government and banking (their allies in crime). When will they arrest Killary Clinton, Hunter Biden, and really arrest Ghislaine Maxwell???? I know there’s still some good people in the FBI, but their leadership has totally corrupt for a long long long time. Look, for example, back at the part J Edgar Hoover and the FBI played in the coverup of the JFK assassination!!!

  3. One part gets a bit tiresome: Enough with calling Coleen “old” already. Gawd!
    Cut with that PLEASE! UGH
    That side.
    It’s a very perilous situation.
    Scary and sad.

    Lots of martyrs … Lose and get no recognition.
    It’s funny to me the “principles” Ian will just cast side when it benefits him. He’ll swear up and done that he has them.
    Then other times he’ll stick to things though it shoots himself in the foot.
    That’s the stupid part
    He’ll take a plea.
    And that’s not reverse psychology.

  4. Fuck the banks.
    I say lie to them.
    Fuck them and thier busy body crap.
    Though interfacing with them at all means you are screwed.
    Lying to them… Is just… You’re doomed before you start.
    Unless you have a really good false I’d.

  5. Porc:
    Where’s the fraud if you consider yourself a church and you tell the bank you’re a church?

    Dave: Not understanding any of your first comment. Care to elaborate?

  6. “it sounds like the purpose of the bank accounts was misrepresented.” : It’s more a misrepresentation of what happened by the feds than what anybody did. They were literally writing down rare coins at a time when nobody even knew what bitcoin was. It’s as close to a description of what the account would be used for as you can get without an detailed explanation that wouldn’t even fit.

  7. I want to make something clear: None of the Crypto6 were taken advantage of by Ian and all have a good relation with him despite what the FBI has done (not that everyone can communicate). There are no hard feelings and there shouldn’t be. No one entered into a situation without consciousness of the fact that they were interacting with someone who would put them at a high risk of being violently violated without good cause by the federal government even if some didn’t have any idea about the details of what Ian was doing in connection with any legal agreements.

    All arrested were already well aware the FBI had slandered Ian’s name and fraudulently obtained a warrant in 2016 over non-existent child porn. All persons already knew about the FBI’s 2012 attempt to get Mr Nobody to become an informant on Ian and the Keene Activist Center. An FBI agent had to falsely swear to obtain said warrant in the first 2015 incident and these computers and devices that were seized at that time have largely already been returned.

    You almost NEVER can get back computers and devices even if charges are dropped or never brought if they contain evidence of a crime and possession of child porn is a crime. The same thing would apply to weed in a case where you were never convicted of a crime or charges were otherwise dropped. The reality is this case is nothing more or less than political persecution where individuals jumped through the minimum hoops required to operate legally and the government wants to make a case out of it because they can make things look funny enough to the public and potentially a jury to maybe get a conviction.

    The reality is the feds, prosecution, and reporting on this story has done everything they could to leave out important details about the Shire Free Church- like it’s existence pre-dating (by many years) any involved in cryptocurrency sales. Clearly these entities were not setup for the purpose of defrauding the banks. You can’t make a plausible argument that Ian thought up said crime in 2013, founded the church, and then waited until 2016 to start selling crypto. Why wait 3 years if your intent is to deceive the banks for the purpose of selling crypto? Why lead a congregation for 9 years! Why bother fundraising for other charitable causes? If the objective is money Ian didn’t need the money and he certainly didn’t spend the money on himself. Ian took a vow of poverty a long ass time ago. Long before anyone started selling Bitcoin. Even much of shit stolen of significant value by the FBI pre-dates the sales of crypto currency.

    There was actual fraud, but it was the FBI and fed perpetrating that fraud on the courts, on the public, and on you, who are reading this story.

  8. “The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted–and you create a nation of law-breakers.”– Atlas Shrugged

  9. “The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power.” — 1984

  10. I don’t think the church is going to be accepted as legit.
    For one thing it seems like they use various churches.
    Which doesn’t seem legit to put it mildly.
    So someone in the comments above started going on about that the church is legit.
    If it didn’t happen that they said
    “Let’s use this church name for this bank account no let’s use this church name for this bank account.”
    ^ that is not going to help the argument that the churches are legit.
    It will help the argument, imo, that they were trying to deceive

  11. But that’s just going by my cursory take with the info I’ve taken by skimming articles.

  12. I don’t know.. did they actually go to a bank and say we’re opening this for the Church of Satan?
    Or I’m opening this for the Church of the invisible hand?
    And was that okay with the bank?

  13. You’ll have to be more specific.. Even though I thought what I said was clear

  14. Imo.. the church consists of.. Ian calling his radio show a church, and his hosting “pastoring” or the equivalent.
    And putting his possessions and property etc under a LLC or some legal entity, that is owned by the “church”.
    But besides that..
    I’m rather certain there were no weekly church meetings..
    I do know that they vied to get validated as a church once through whatever channels one does that.
    That didn’t happen.
    What a real church is in the eyes of most… Is really nebulous.
    And the state validating what a church is is a contradiction anyway.

    But they just have to convince a jury that they were at Church.
    Or maybe they don’t.
    Maybe the church is not even going to be in the courtroom.

  15. So juries tell us whether or not a church is legit? Okay is there any way they can tell us that before we open bank accounts and federal charges start piling up? That would be helpful thx.

  16. @David
    Ian is not sincere about the church because Mark Edge influenced him. This blind hatred is of Christianity is causing him problems. The church idea is only for using separation of church and state and to use church exemption mainly for tax purposes.

    Some Christians support this idea for tax exemption without realizing this as a way of attacking church establishments. They’re blind to it because their priority is to do away with taxes.

    Had he stepped back and realizing his bias, he could’d established a mosque. The government doesn’t go after muslims for fear of charge of “islamophobia”.

    Ian supports the mosque by that muslim dude (as an imam, he knows all about lying to kafir straight to their faces), he should’d put up his house as a mosque and get away with murder.

  17. The jury decides everything.

    They’ll hear everything, obviously.

    We just go by this and that: the jury gets to hear *all the evidence, and how it applies to the elements of the crime.

    I personally think all churches are a scam.
    But the jury’s going to judge the honesty of Ian and them.
    This whole trial could be much Ado about very little
    And just a while lot of bloviating by the FBI and prosecutors

    Thing is they got the power to throw people in jail for a long time . They did it with lots of people.
    Lot at some of the Black Panthers back in the day.
    Point is maybe the charges don’t need to be real or solid: all they have to do is a whole bunch of theatrics and hard talk and they convince a jury, and next thing you know Ian is up the river for a long time

  18. I don’t know why Ian picked the lawyer he has. I presume he has really good reasons for that. The Black Panthers some of whom lost if I’m recalling correctly had William Kustler .. who is very famous

  19. I wonder if Ian and them *wanted* a trial by jury.
    I wonder if a “bench trial” would be better

  20. It seemed like that judge was pretty good.
    He did contrary the magistrate.
    Who seemed nasty

  21. David:

    “I don’t think the church is going to be accepted as legit.
    For one thing it seems like they use various churches.
    Which doesn’t seem legit to put it mildly.”

    There are different religious entities run by different people. The government is the one who is claiming they are connected somehow. The Shire Free Church has been around a long time. The Church Of The Invisible hand dates back quite a ways as well. The most recent one, the Reformed Satanic Temple wasn’t around long enough to likely even be in violation of the registration requirements at the time of the raids. There is a certain amount of time one has to register under the governments own requirements once you establish the type of business claimed, but said type of business claimed was never created or run, for other reasons. If your operations don’t fall within the statute you have no obligation to register in the first place.

    “So someone in the comments above started going on about that the church is legit.
    If it didn’t happen that they said
    “Let’s use this church name for this bank account no let’s use this church name for this bank account.”
    ^ that is not going to help the argument that the churches are legit.
    It will help the argument, imo, that they were trying to deceive”

    I lost you on what you are trying to say here. There was no conspiracy to fraudulently setup accounts in the name of religious entities as these entities existed independently of each other and even if one party had it doesn’t translate into a collaborative planned effort by those involved.

    Effectively they took people with similar interests and beliefs and painted them as if they’re all doing it together as one group when that isn’t what happened. Different parties were doing their own thing and the government is trying to claim there was some sort of collaboration among all involved, but that isn’t what happened. Certainly some parties had LEGAL agreements with one another, but that isn’t the same thing as having planned together as a group to setup entities for the purpose of defrauding banks. This wouldn’t have been necessary as the evidence itself shows- some accounts for those who didn’t have religious entities setup utilized their own name. However it isn’t required to setup a religious entity in the first place to have a religious entity and none of that gets around the due diligence requirements of banks which makes it a futile argument that it was utilized to defraud the banks. The banks have to acquire a social security number of the people opening accounts on behalf of entities whether or not they are registered or not.

    Anyway- I believe it was only some subset of individuals and/or entities charged that had legal arrangements with the Shire Free Church. It’s all well documented and hopefully it’ll be clearer at trial once someone whose more knowledgeable about the details can speak freely on it. It was quite deceptive for the government to claim some sort of conspiracy as people can do things independently of each other without there have been any plan.

  22. “I don’t know.. did they actually go to a bank and say we’re opening this for the Church of Satan?
    Or I’m opening this for the Church of the invisible hand?
    And was that okay with the bank?”

    Yes- they did. And these banks had no problem opening accounts for those charged.

  23. “Imo.. the church consists of.. Ian calling his radio show a church, and his hosting “pastoring” or the equivalent. ”

    A religious entity doesn’t have to have a church or even meet in a building. There are mosques out of peoples homes and court rulings to that end. There are plenty of televangelists whose primary and only outlet is broadcast television. Broadcast television is OK, not radio?

    “I do know that they vied to get validated as a church once through whatever channels one does that.”

    There is no channel to get “validated” as a church or religious entity. What determines that are things like fundamental beliefs, and similar. There is no requirement to register a religious entity with the government. Period. Many do… but that isn’t some sort of legal requirement.

    ” I’m rather certain there were no weekly church meetings..”

    Yes there were. We had weekly meetings for more than ~6 years.

  24. They did try to get tax exempt status.
    That’s the validation I was r talking about.
    There were no real meetings lol

  25. They are connected!
    They’re connected in this case!
    You are jumping through hoops to be contrary.

  26. That isn’t JJ from shire tv

  27. “Porcupine9652” asks, “So lying to banks about what you are doing with the account isn’t fraud?”

    If you call the bank and hear a message that says “Your call may be recorded or monitored for quality assurance”, but their real reasons for recording your call are different, is *that* fraud? If you hear a message saying “Your call is really important to us”, but then they keep you waiting another 20 minutes on hold, is *that* fraud? If they take taxpayer “stimulus” bailout money, but then spend much of it on executive bonuses rather than loaning it out, is *that* fraud?

    The government’s interest in supposed fraud involving banks seems highly selective, to put it mildly.

    I still haven’t heard exactly what “lies” were supposedly told to banks in this case, or why it matters. What business is it of a bank’s what you do with the money in your own account? If you aren’t violating the law and you aren’t violating their policies, why should they care? If you tell a banker you’re opening an account to save money to go to college, but you’re actually saving for a trip to Europe, or planning to buy a house, or invest in cryptocurrency, so what? Again, none of their business!

  28. “If you call the bank and hear a message that says “Your call may be recorded or monitored for quality assurance”, but their real reasons for recording your call are different, is *that* fraud?”

    Unlikely, as “quality assurance” is vague enough that I think you’ll have trouble finding an alternative reason that does not fall within the bounds of term.

    ” If you hear a message saying “Your call is really important to us”, but then they keep you waiting another 20 minutes on hold, is *that* fraud?”

    No, that statement is vague and makes no specific claim or representation on when they would take your call.

    “If they take taxpayer “stimulus” bailout money, but then spend much of it on executive bonuses rather than loaning it out, is *that* fraud?”

    Only if they knowingly made misrepresentations in their application, otherwise no.

  29. Kk even though you quoted my words.

    What followed wasn’t always a argument that responded to it.

    More importantly.. You “argue” with ME ; I’m not interested in “arguing” with you.. I put argument and quotes because if it isn’t a response to what I said, then it’s not an argument.
    Also, I’m just putting out stuff.
    I guess what I say would be an argument if someone had a viable actual response.

    Your arguing that Ian and Colleen and Renee and Nobody all them; all of a sudden were… These prominent people in like half a dozen churches is laughable . Prominent and people are the ones that open bank accounts for churches.
    You’re weak *arguments” are not helpful. You should put up *real arguments* that actually hold water; because I’m not the one you have to convince! the *jury* is the one you have to convince.

  30. Ok “JJ” I have a question for you.

    Why would anyone want to open up a bank account under the name of some church … A church that’s almost non-existent in their life.. riddle me that one.
    That’s not even a question really, that’s just something that the jury’s going to ask in their minds and need a good reasonable answer to in their minds.
    The jury’s going to want an answer to that I would imagine; a answer that doesn’t involve being deceptive on the people’s parts.
    What is your answer to that, that isn’t the answer that they were being deceptive.

    They weren’t accountants for the Church of Satan or half a dozen other churches that they pulled out of their asses.
    Go ahead argue that one “JJ” and you’ll send Ian and them up the river; if you’re going to try to sell that crap.

  31. What was the point of the bank accounts?
    The jury’s going to want to know why!
    What is the non-deceptive answer for that?
    What is the honest unimpeachable answer, that a person can honestly say to why open multiple bank accounts for multiple churches?
    That’s for Mr quote, unquote “JJ” who seems like he has a in,. And an answer for everything.
    And once again, your answer “JJ”, has to be able to be sold to the jury not just trying to f****** doup me.

  32. That’s for”KK” NOT JJ

  33. Ian breaking silence again. If he and the others were so peaceful why did he start an illegal enterprise? This BS of what great people these cryptos are and how they were railroaded and picked on by the federal government. What a bunch of BS Ian. You write these little tidbits to clean your conscience. Those who plead guilty are the ones who spoke out the loudest. Now they are federal felons. They have ruined their lives big time. It will dog them for the rest of their lives.

    Who knows Ian but RP and the others could roll over on you for a lesser sentence. You have no idea how this will impact you. You were caught red handed. You are facing a minimum of 10 years in federal prison. There’s prison and then there is federal prison. They can move you around from state to state if they want. You are going to lose everything just because you are an entitled ass and ignorant. To whine an moan the how great you think you are and how great the others are but there is no way the feds would put this much effort, time, and money just to catch an innocent person. Please don’t compare yourself to others who went to jail for those who took their activism to a knew level and were busted for breaking the law.

    To actually think a jury is going to role over on you and claim your innocent, is out of the question. With today’s environment people are angry towards those who have been ripping the government off, I don’t foresee a jury not convicting you. Good luck accepting the punishment you will receive. Those inmates will find out who you are and if you are legit in prison. If you lie to them or they find out you were dating a minor, your life wouldn’t be worth spit. Do the crime, do the time.

  34. Shut up up JJ

  35. JJ, you waste product.
    You have alot of nerve getting all high and mighty about people lying.
    Pot meet kettle.
    Fucking dipshit

  36. It’s pretty easy to know if you will lose or win.
    You just see what the elements of the crimes are and, through the discovery, whether or not they can prove those.
    At least that’s the way I see it.

  37. So life in prison is on the table, I guess.
    Maybe Ian thinks that it’s just posturing or gesturing on the government’s part.

    Obviously Ian has more of the facts and factors that factor in* to either a win or a loss in court.
    And yeah the government, in the past, has done a lot of bloviating, and Ian’s won in some situations.
    Like when the fire inspector came in and supposedly was charging him some ungodly amount per day; like 500 bucks a day fine.
    Ian won that one.
    Then that time down in Massachusetts where Ian won a $5,000 award because the court behaved poorly.
    All I know is being a martyr for cryptocurrency might seem good now. But what about 10 years in jail sitting in a cell with whatever amount of time left; will being a martyr for Bitcoin lose its romantic luster?
    Then he goes from 40 something to 50 something in jail and will there be more after that?
    I just hope he’s looking at things in a realistic point of view, instead of as the superhero martyr for cryptocurrency: he’s not going to be doing cryptocurrency any favors by sitting in jail for 20 years.
    Maybe he *is making the right decision; like I said, he’s got *all* the facts and factors that factor in.
    The people in this forum don’t have all the facts and factors that factor in.
    So he’s armed with *that* when he* makes his* decisions.
    But after saying all that.
    I remember Ian making some decisions that I think were dumb like when he decided to support that state rep who was I think he was smoking pot on the State House grounds and then they had messages they caught him with that he’s trying to get underage girls or something.
    Then because they Ian’s support of him* he was barred from like free state project stuff.
    And what did Ian get for that martyr stance? He got nothing: that State Rep wasn’t his buddy or anything. And Ian was barred from those events.
    He didn’t forward Liberty in any way shape or form he just screwed himself really.
    This is what I’m talking about when I say he selective about the “principles” he dies on the hill for.
    Well this is a pretty big hill he’s seemingly going to die on.
    And it could be a dumb decision again. And going to jail for a really long time won’t be a theory anymore or a fancyfull notion. And I think he’s going to be disabused of this “piritual retreat” nonsense which I’ve told Mark to help disabuse him of.

  38. David – Why don’t you make me. I dropped down to your level and found I didn’t like it at all. To many criminals on your level

  39. You’re funny

  40. After what happened to Ross U I would be very afraid not to take a deal. I sure hope Ian and Aria don’t get MANY years in prison. We need you on the outside doing more good.

  41. “Ghost of Karl Marx” – What do you think the actual Karl Marx would have thought about you siding with big banks in his name?

    Nevertheless, I’ll give you props for consistency in terms of your willingness to back the interests not just of big government, but of big institutions generally, over those of individuals. That’s arguably a more principled authoritarian stance than the ones taken by many of your namesake’s followers.

  42. Can any of Ian’s critics here explain, in plain English, exactly who he allegedly wronged, and how? Who are the victims? What harm did they suffer? Why aren’t they speaking out? And how is anything he did in any way proportional to a penalty of life in prison or any punishment close to that?

    Forget the ideological talking points for a minute and consider that you are talking about one of your fellow human beings. Do you really hate him so much?

    Does anyone really not understand that these are a bunch of trumped up charges against someone certain Feds want to go after because he is an outspoken and effective political dissident?

  43. I wasn’t really defending banks with my comment per se, but rather the concept of what is and isn’t fraud.

    Interestingly, Karl Marx was fine with the idea of a centralized state bank. The big difference is that banking activity needs to support the needs of the people and not the capitalist class, which is what we have today.

  44. So let’s see if I’ve got this right:

    Vague terms like “quality assurance” — not fraud.

    (Specific?) terms like “church” — fraud

    Am I close?

  45. Wow, Karl. So you’re fine with banks that print money and give it to the libtard weirdo class with no further expectations and absolutely no questions asked, huh? Well that sounds magical. Boy, I’m sure nothing could ever go wrong with that kind of monetary policy, am I right?

  46. Don’t be so astonished, Intrigare. Libtard weirdos have always chaffed at the idea of churches and stuff. They’re all Godless commies, remember? 😉

  47. I wonder what was offered, as a plea bargain, to Ian and Aria.
    I do believe it’s available, online, for a fee, at a place called Pacer.
    But I don’t want to pay for it, basically.
    Knowing exactly what they rejected would be interesting.
    Maybe it was a high amount of jail time.
    And if it was high jail time, then it would be more understandable that they would reject it.
    Also they do often give better deals to closer it comes to the day of trial.

  48. This is for Starchild.
    No I guess they already know.
    Supposedly Ian sold cryptocurrency to people who used it for illegal purposes and causing harm to elders and drug addicts.
    So ipso facto Ian is a drug pusher on the elderly.
    I’m not arguing that! But you axed a question and that’s my understanding of the gooberments position

  49. Here is part of what is alleged:

    “The co-conspirators engaged in substantial efforts to evade detection of their unlawful virtual currency exchange scheme by avoiding answering financial institutions’ questions about the nature of the business and tricking financial institutions into believing that their unlawful virtual currency exchange business was instead a religious organization receiving charitable contributions.”

    That sounds like fraud to me. He lied to them so that they would offer their services. The banks wouldn’t have wanted to do business with Ian otherwise. In a free market (which is what you ultimately want, right?) people have to be honest in their business dealings.

    With respect to the quality assurance recording, they could arguably be using the recording for any number of purposes that fall under quality assurance, like testing the speed and politeness of their employee or ensuring that they are meeting legal compliance. In fact, I dare you to think of a reason that wouldn’t fall under that category.

  50. Silvia, you need to read. At no point did I endorse how the current banking system operates.

Care to comment?