Crypto6 Day 6: Another Day In La La Land & Dirty Government Tricks

Originally published at: Crypto6 Day 6: Another Day In La La Land & Dirty Government Tricks | Free Keene

Joa from Breaking The Flaw Crypto6 Jury Drawing

Today we get further confirmation from the governments own ‘victim’ witnesses that Ian’s not involved in scamming in any shape or form. We try and follow along with what the governments dirty tricks are and what the point of introducing certain audio and video clips are. The government touches on an “international” bank account, a threatening FinCEN letter, and a letter from Attorney Seth Hipple advising the church it’s not required to register as a money services business under state or federal law. The government has been kind enough to submit these documents to the docket for us so everyone can read them for themselves.

Also take note that the trial has been on hiatus due to Renee and lawyer falling ill, but it is planned to resume Monday December 19th at 9AM. The defense should begin introducing it’s own witnesses and evidence and likely get way more interesting. The trial is open to the public and supporters of the Crypto6 are highly encouraged to attend. The address of the courthouse is: 55 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301. Also note that you don’t have to come for the full day. It starts at 9AM and there is usually an hour for lunch with a conclusion of the trial day at 5PM.

Crypto6 Day 6

FBI agent from prior day takes the stand again and prosecution continues questioning the ‘witness’…

Crypto Church Of New Hampshire Questions

Certificate of invisible hand trade name document on screen

Certify’s nobody is certificate to do business as church of the invisible hand

NH Peace Church


Document shown on screen: Trade name registration for NH Peace Church

Certificate of registered trade name: NH Peace Church

Showing drivers license and passports of Renee, Nobody, and others

[The ‘expert’ refers to “Word documents”, but humorously these are actually LibreOffice documents in a different format being shown on a computer that merely is associating them with Microsoft Word, yes, this is who we are suppose to be relying on tell us Ian’s guilty of some not-very-clear ‘crime’, all the while exposing their own ‘victims’ to ‘identity theft’… I’ll quote the word ‘identity theft’ as this is actually a fraud against another, not the individual whose identity has been used and moves the blame or really liability from those accepting said documents to other parties primarily being the victims]

List of folders with bank names shown

~ 15 banks

GFA Letter

Suspected fraudulent activity, froze account, colleene

Has determined account has been used to exchange virtual currency for real currency

You may be a money transmitter

Document shown on screen: International Bank Application Ian Filled Out

International Bank Account Application

Q Does it say profit from bitcoin sales?

A No

[humorous cause it does say church investments which would include bitcoin ‘profits’]

~ 16 exchanged listed in folder on Ian’s laptop on screen

[really it’s the church’s laptop, there exists a double standard here and depending on when it is convenient for them to say it’s Ian’s laptop or the church as both have financial implications in legal land]

Showing church policies on screen

[verification and KYC policies which are done with intent to stop fraud, whether or not it works, these are the governments own rules for what banks have to do even if they’re not technically applicable to the church’s sale of its own bitcoin]

Shows document on screen which banks church has “broken up” with

~22 banks listed

~7 rejected in advance

~6 active banks

Exchange statuses

Ian OK at ~7

Colleen OK at ~1

~9 denied or canceled

[remember that what a bank can legally do or the risks thereof is not the same thing as what you can do as a customer thereof, so for instance, you might have worked in the sex industry 20 years ago, nothing illegal about that, it’s not illegal for you to open a bank account, but banks will likely cut you off because the banks have been threatened by a bureaucrat at the federal level via a letter sent to all financial institutions, this actually happened not that long ago, and as a result all financial institutions in the US cut off anybody connected to the sex industry- the letter used words like “sex trafficking”- but that’s merely code for anything connected to sex, you opening a bank account, them closing it, and you repeatedly doing this at other banks doesn’t make you guilty of a crime, and the banks generally don’t tell you why they are closing your account for liability reasons]

Now looking at downloads folder on screen

Third folder down is KYC folder

Q What is that?

A It stands for know your customer

[I wonder how she knows what Ian’s intentions were for that, though it’s almost certainly a correct interpretation of what he intended, you’d think they’d need to have Ian up on the stand to testify to it, not some third party]

Q What is the last folder?

A Telegram desktop

Ian recommendation file

Showing (Melanie Neighbours Tax Planning & Preparation) Unsigned/recommendation/certification of asset document

KYC Telegram folder shown on screen

This folder shows a list of peoples names with KYC documents in them

[yes, the government is exposing these people and putting them at risk of ‘identity fraud’ during the trial, none of it is censored, or more honestly the government is aiding fraudsters who need ID information like this in defrauding others]

[FBI agent is confirming what is found in KYC folder contains ID of people who testified as “victim” witnesses at trial previously]

Q Did you go through all photos of all people?

A Yes

Q What was the average age?

A 59 from 2020

[there were 4,000 transactions, and these was a TINY fraction, call me skeptical, it’s not clear if these were folks that the church was calling to do verification with which would also have bumped the age of these folks up, but even if it was the average age of those conducting 4,000 transactions suggests that you’re not allowed to do sell bitcoin to older people which just sounds crazy- you’ll note later though that the ‘red flags’- a government term doesn’t actually mean you have to stop a transaction either so if these are people who were ‘red flags’ and the church did do business with them after a phone call that would be identical to what the banks procedure if not more than what financial institutions do]

Q You found Patrick Brown folder empty when you got it?

A Yes

[thinking about this a bit this is what I’d probably consider remnants, just not in it’s better more obvious form, but basically it’s partial data left over after some task has been performed and only gives you a partial picture of things]

[It’s curious to note that it would appear they are trying to point out that Ian missed or lost records or something happened to KYC records assuming they’re not just stored somewhere more permanent elsewhere of ONE ‘victim’ which is interesting because later we also see the banks have lost data as well yet the government doesn’t make them out to be scum]

They are going through dozens of picture IDs to show the various ages of some of the people, but not all of the people in this folder

Of those they are showing it appears to be those in the 45-70 age range mostly

[something else to note here is that they are not all victims and there is nothing suggesting that these are all victims… rather the government is trying to show through implication of the fact that this folder had a lot of older people in it that Ian is somehow guilty of targeting older folks and working with scammers]

[weird fed church photo on screen in one folder but out of place, how did it get there? presumably it ended up there by accident, but it’s curious mostly just in that I’m not sure what federal incident the photo comes from, there have not been that many, but I guess there have been some other incidents particularly if it’s quite dated]

[it’s very apparent that the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury buying bitcoin as an older person is illegal or should be]

Q Anything else you noticed?

A Buying on behalf of another

Playing audio exhibit from FTL

[unfortunately I wasn’t able to capture the episode this came from, it’ was a VERY brief cut of a show, clearly intentionally misleading although I’m not sure what it was suppose to show exactly]

Ian, Aria, Matt, and a caller talk about the Nigerian scammer

Ian “So you got hit for over $16,000?”

Ian “What was going through head?”

Caller “Never said to write no refunds”

Talking about man in the middle attack

[I’m not clear if this was someone who got scammed by someone pretending to be Ian online or what the case was, but I think that might have been what happened here, and the misleading part on the prosecutor’s side might be that they want the jury to think Ian was somehow actively partaking in scamming people and then talking about it on air with the victim of his scam?]

[I mean, it seems like what this should be showing if played and explained in context is that Ian is aware of and warns people about these sorts of scams, but this isn’t the defense playing this, it’s cut up by the prosecution with some sort of specific intent]

Good client bought on multiple occasions and was buying for good friend

All hoops for know your customer were jumped through

Ian “I generally don’t do third party trades either, but this was a good customer”

[aww maybe the objective here although poorly explained to the jury is the “third party trades”]

Q Is this what you saw?

A No

[this audio is undated, maybe third party trades became more common? it’s not like we have a ton of third party trades evidence here by the prosecution though anyway given only a small small percentage were shown of the ~4000 transactions]

[something else to point out is people don’t start getting social security until 62-70 depending on different factors and the average age was 59 according to the governments own math]

Q Was this person asked why they had so much cash they wanted to turn into bitcoin?

A No

Q Where was all this?

A On Ian freeman’s computer

[again, wrong, it was the church’s laptop, how can someone testify to something they don’t even know the answer to and while this may not be useful to the defense I’d still love to have asked the question what is your basis for claiming this is Ian’s laptop? it’s presumably the user name ftl_ian, but if that is the case then if I create a user called FBI can I claim it was the FBI’s computer when they seize it as evidence and try to use something on it from my house? the other thing is I’m pretty darn sure there were other people who touched that system here and there and I think this comes up somewhere too which begs the question how did you do determine who was the person who actively created a given document? etc]

Q How many did you interview?

A 30-40

[that’s a pretty big gap… ya think you might be able to do a little bit better than that as far as narrowing down the #?]

Q Did any not have third party involved?

A No

[so you selectively looked then… hmmm if you only look at x you’ll only find x, and I’m also curious what is mean by third party here exactly hmmm]

Q Are you trying to investigate one of the people in the Telegram folder?

A Yes

Q What makes this one different?

A We have his true name

[correct me if I’m mistaken, but don’t you have the true name of everyone? aka that is what is happening with KYC after all.. you’re getting a picture of both the ID and the ID next to the person for all persons in the transaction… and isn’t this the result of IDK Ian doing KYC and the church having a policy thereof which I think you already testified to here at this point in the trial ]

Q What has been different in these types of scams?

A Fake name, no ID

“in this case bitcoin clouds the money even more”

[but he got ID!!!!!! so lets get this right… he used a fake name and had no idea between the victim and the scammer, but the church got ID and it was a result of the raid and the church doing KYC that you got the ID? right? right ?]

A 2019 audio clip of free talk live is played

Ian “this show is generally got an older audience”

Ian “and also unfortunately the age of target scammer”

[it seems very much like they are trying to pull stuff out of context and are trying to suggest the church’s objective is to scam older folks]

Q What is in this folder?

A Signed agreements for assistant positions, termination agreements

On screen is an agreement between shire [free church I presuming?] and aria [reformed satanic church I’m presuming] for loan of $72,000, 50 BCH to spread crypto

A similar agreement is also shown that is signed between the shire free church and nobody

Play two related audios from BoA recorded call

[aka for quality and assurance purposes this call is being recorded … or something like that!]

Nobody: My first and and last name is nobody

Nobody: Actually fnk nobody

Nobody: Church of the invisible hand

BoA representative: How can I assist you?

Nobody: I’ve got an ongoing dispute with the bank for some time, you shut down account

Nobody: You still owe us $40,000

Nobody: Your belief is our customer defrauded someone else

Nobody: I would like a police report and full accounting of what happened with the money

Nobody: It has to come back or be explained

BoA representative: Ok awww….


Nobody: I do have a claim #, let me find my reading glasses

Nobody: I got church treasurer on the line

Ian: I got reference #

New witness

Name: Dannela Virel

Q Live?

A Portagon, Fl

Q How long?

A 30 years


2012 retired

widow since 2018

financial flanner

Q Dec of 2014 were you on a dating website?


I met Jerry Harmon and he worked on oil rigs

He lived in Raleigh, NC

We would Skype and text

Skype video site in beginning and then telephone calls later

Q Was an actual person on Skype?

A Yes

Yes, same voice as in video

Q How often?

A Several times of day

Talked about children, what he did in his time off, etc

Q You spoke to family too?

A Yes

A women claimed to be his sister

Q Did you make arrangements to see him?

A Yes, but when arrived was told to go to Alexandria, Virginia

Q Did you see him during your trip?

A No

Q Did he send you any gifts?

A Yes, but he didn’t know about them so it must have been someone else

[very bizarre, you’d think she’d just have said no if she knew they weren’t from the guy]

Q He’d send you photos of himself?

A Yes

Q His oil rig broke and asked me for money? Did you send money?

A Yes

I sent him wires from bank. I was given detailed instructions on where to send and what to put on the paperwork as dictated by Mr Freeman via Harmon.

Q What kind of photos were sent?

A Myself and ID/documents

Exhibit on screen of victim with ID shown

[aka the scammer’s victim, they’re not saying Ian scammed anyone, just that he worked with scammers, of which they have provided no evidence, and the governments own witnesses all testified to the fact the scammers didn’t work with Ian]

Q What did you send?

A I sent a photo to Mr Harmon

Q What is this photo?

A Wire transfer document

Q What does it say?

A I authorized….

[this is just a standard disclaimer that the church requires the deposit of cash or in this case the wirer of the funds to put on the receipt to ensure that they understand what the wire is for aka buying bitcoin, from or telegram, the username used, signature, and date, etc]

Q Date of wire?

A Jan 15, 2020

Q Sent to?

A Ian B Freeman

Q What is reference?

A Drilling equipment and virtual goods supplied to me by jerry

Q Date of 2nd wire?

A Jan 21, 2020

Q Did you know why you had to put rebeca down as to who you were buying bitcoin for?

A No

[ok, so, we’re all suppose to stop buying or selling bitcoin or anything else online because there are vulnerable people in the world? come on…]

Q Did you know what bitcoin was at the time?

A Yes

[I kid you not, she actually says she did know what she was buying at the time, but not who it was for]

Q Why did you use two banks?

A To avoid red flags

[doesn’t this sound awfully couched? How many times have you heard an old lady utilize the term red flag?]

Q Who told you this?

A Jerry

[I am skeptical here because I don’t think scammers know of or utilize this terminology ‘red flag’, but maybe I’m just not familiar enough with the scamming world]

Q Did you speak to freeman?

A yes

Q Did you call him?

A He called me, once or twice

Q What did he ask?

A If I wanted to send this money

[so this is evidence that the church’s policy was followed… when a ‘red flag’ occurs the thing a bank might do, but won’t do generally most of the time is take an additional step to approve a transaction or investigate and confirm… the government is evidencing Ian did more than the banks were doing and wasn’t even technically required to do it as he and the church are not a money transmitter and nor a financial institution that is regulated by the feds according to their own rules and of which the lawyers already had advised of]

Q Did Mr Freeman ask why you were buying drilling equipment?

A No

Q About what bitcoin was?

A No

The following day he said he was needing to pay tax at port so I broke up with him

Bank told me that wire was fraudulent and if you accept fraudulent wire you would be on the hook for it so I declined it

[I’m pretty sure she is talking about the scammer here given she didn’t have a relationship with Ian]

Q Where did money come from?

A Sale of plane, money I made, inheritance from mother and partner

Q How has this impacted you?

A Changed how I live

Defense Cross Examines ‘Victim’ Witness

The lawyer starts off with kind words saying “I was touched by your story”

Q This Harmon guy was a fabrication?

A Yes

Q You invested a lot in the guy not just money?

A I did

Q After one video did you preserve it?

A I have no idea

Q Did government ask for it?

A No

Q Charlotte was a setup right?

A Yes

Q You got to Alexandria you had specific place to meet?

A No

Q He never sent flowers?

A He never said that, but sent in his name despite this he seemed unaware

Q Did Chase bank advice this might be a problem?

A No

No one managed my money

Q They didn’t question what you did with your money?

A Right

Q You did wire with other bank to avoid authorities?

A Yes, Jerry said to

Q You never asked about Rebeca?

A That is correct

Q Two short calls with Ian Freeman?

A Yes

Q Asked if really wanted to send money? He was concerned?

A Yes

[ok, so red flag, warned, sent money anyway, exactly what the bank would do in most cases assuming they even went that far as the evidence shows from these government witnesses that the banks rarely questioned transactions]

Q Did he know who Jerry Harmon was?

A I don’t know

Q Did Harmon know Ian?

A He represented himself as knowing Ian

Q He represented himself as a lot of things that were untrue, right?

A That is correct


Back to FBI case manager agent

Prosecutor asks questions first

Q Do you recall how much was being discussed?

A About $350,000 and $40,000

Q Documents found at radio studio?

A Yes

BoA audio played

Ian “My name is nobody and church of the invisible hand”

Ian: “So BoA decided they would close my church account, but decided that a wire was fraudulent so went to local branch and James Baker came (Aria) and he certified that it was not fraud and notarized it.”

Ian: “No one in your department indicated they got it.”

Ian: “You are sitting on $350,000 and I’d like to get that back”

Q Was that nobody?

A No, it was Ian

[just love this, cause he’s presumably authorized to speak on nobody’s behalf]

Search warrants for emails:

From Ian to Chris

We don’t check it because vending machine is part of church and respect privacy

Q Letter say bank wants to know source of funds?

A Yes

Q Did he reply?

A Yes

Ian said: “We have received contributions from people in various parts of the US, is that a problem?”

Reply “No, not a problem”

Ian: “Are you referring to check that came out?”

Q Any discussion of bitcoin?

A No

One email says

“Never invest more you can afford to lose”

email (FinCEN letter):

Threatening FinCEN Letter

Threatening FinCEN Letter Displayed On Screen

Another letter from Attorney Seth Hipple is displayed about how a vending machine is not an ATM and no KYC is required to sell crypto from ones own wallet.

Letter Written By Attorney Seth Hipple Explaining Why Church Is Not A Money Service Business

Letter Written By Attorney Seth Hipple Explaining Why Church Is Not A Money Service Business

Another set of letters is shown on the screen to at least one or more banks in an effort to find a less hostile bank and identify what the issue is exactly that causes banks to close accounts. The letter asks one of the banks is it threats or fines by government?

Plays video clip where I believe it is Ian talking about vending machine and explains that it is like candy, can’t be taxed, can’t be stolen, I didn’t ask permission to sell Bitcoin.

[note: Ian’s not required to ask permission to sell Bitcoin as prior letters from attorney clearly state no registration is required at state or federal levels within the context of the churchs crypto operations]

That’s it for day 6!

If you got this far you might also consider gifting Joa from Breaking The Flaw some crypto. He has consistently come out to the trial, drawn cartoons for us, and helped with making little protests outside the courthouse like that of last week an amazing success. No one here is getting paid to write these articles, take notes, make drawings, film, or do really any other connected activity. That means any fiscal contribution you might consider making to offset our, or in this case Joa’s costs to come out to the trial and produce these drawings for us is greatly appreciated.

Direct Your Crypto Gifts To Joa

Direct Your Crypto Gifts To Joa

Damn, too bad Ian failed to heed or seek out better business/legal advice.
I.e. Taking Fiat from one party to send BTC to another party was IMHO a huge mistake unless they are all trusted. It seems all witnesses were this type interaction.

While remittances are a multi-billion dollar industry, it is an inside game with enforcers to stop outsiders from getting much action.
The defense lawyer should have witnesses to testify about many aspects of this industry such as how international wires do the same thing using licensed players facilitating the same scams.

Ultimately, the money transmission seems a key element in these charges.
Hopefully the jury has one or more sympathizers on it.

If Ian really thought his high volume high dollar traders were good, that was folly, they were the thieves, not honest traders.

I still can’t get over they are wearing masks. The science is in and masks do not mitigate the spread of viri by a single percentage point! Why are they wearing masks??

More evidence of how far back in the dark ages these state institutions still are.

Anyway, thanks for posting.

Well, so the defense put in a motion today to throw out the money transmission charge because there was no transmission occurring and the prosecution never supplied any witness or evidence that it was. A transaction is not the same thing as transmission so… think of it like this. I sell you land, and we had a transaction, ok, but did you transmit that land to me? Of course not. Same thing is the case with bitcoin. Even if we have to interpret the law in 2022 differently since it has been ammended to include bitcoin that isn’t the case for the law as charged as the law only changed post FB-raid in 2021 and there would be an issue of ex-post facto (ie it’s not legal in the US) situation. Basically you can’t be charged for committing a if that crime didn’t exist yet.

The defense has not put on a defense yet, only a cross examination of the prosecutors witnesses, of which were already terrible for the prosecution. They either purgeed themselves, were incompetent, admitted there was no crime, or something similar.

The defense has already pretty clearly established through cross examination of the prosecutors own witnesses that ‘red flags’ are not something that indicates a financial institution should or has to stop a transaction from occurring. Even if one had to register as a money transmitter the procedures followed were well within the broad requirements of the law and better than of the banks.

While the judge may not dismiss any of the charges (everything is rigged here) there is still a chance of that happening. Lower level judges generally aren’t going to want to risk their decision being overturned on appeal. The question now is how strong are the motions.

It doesn’t seem like a slam dunk, as far as all the motions, but there does appear to be merit to all the motions made. The judge, the defense, and the judge argued about these 3 motions today and some of them the judge has to take under advisement and look more closely at what the law says exactly to make a final determination.

Based on what we have seen I don’t think it would have made any difference whether or not the church dealt or didn’t deal with such high volume traders. As the defense pointed out today in the motions to dismiss the charges the state didn’t actually do what they normally do or should generally do. Meaning if you are going to charge someone with tax evasion, as an example, the state normally, according to their own witnesses contacts the person they think should be paying taxes about those taxes. The state didn’t do that. Now, you might say they technically didn’t have to, but what this demonstrates is these charges wouldn’t have not occurred because the reasons for the charges was political, not for any sort of “justice” or other legitimate law enforcement purpose of protecting anyone. The governments witnesses who were also victims testified, every one of them, to the fact that the government didn’t want to investigate the scammers here. They testified that the FBI wasn’t interested in investigating the scammers.

As much as I’m with you on this issue more generally it’s amazing that this is what you bring up in relation to this case. There are so many other interesting aspects. None-the-less I did also make an issue of it, however slightly in one of the articles I posted to Free Keene.

I was debating posting in case you’d feel that way. But I’ve just no comment about the case atm… None of it is a surprise for me so far; I expect this level of incompetence and criminal behavior from state minions, so…not surprised yet. I’d actually be surprised if they weren’t behaving this incompetently and criminally! (Any statists reading this, feel free to surprise me!)

I’m just holding out Ian and the team can pull a win here against all the bullsh*t.

Yea, it’s all cool. I just see so much here happening and yet all I hear is masks this masks that. They suck. Can’t believe they are doing it either, but it’s mostly down to trying to keep out supporters of the Crypto6 from the courtroom. They also got a new order for EVERYONE to ID whereas before it was just lawyers or court employees or something even though they were asking everyone to ID. Well, they knew we didn’t want to ID and many of us were refusing so they went and got an actual order from the court to ID just ahead of the trial starting. It’s not about masks here. The CDC said they don’t recommend masks anymore (for the most part). It’s about keeping people out they don’t want I think. It’s about not wanting to be accountable to the public.

Anyway- there are two documents that I posted pertaining to the policies so you can actually read them for yourself. The one was issued Nov 30th. The other is undated, but makes no sense given the CDC doesn’t recommend masks any more more or less. It gets even weirder because the judge doesn’t have us wear masks all the time. He tells us we can take them off from time to time. It’s just bizarre. Can’t remember what the theories are on it, but people got different theories. I’m inclined to think it’s entirely down to keeping us out given that at no other point (and I’ve probably been to more than two dozen hearings prior to the trial in the past ~year maybe) have they made us wear masks. It’s not even like it’s just this court case I’ve been to. There are other cases altogether I’ve been to at this courthouse (like Jeremy Kauffman’s LBRY case) with different judges. This judge I’ve been too more of his hearings than any other too soo! And they don’t make you wear the mask into the courthouse either and none of their own employees are wearing them except for in this specific trial starting form the first day of the trial.

copying all these PenguinReports to an audio reader and listening to them so I can call talk radio with the most interesting parts.

I’m glad you’re getting some use out of them. It was a bitch, a hell of a lot of work to attend and report on the trial every single day. I somehow pulled it off. Thanks for letting me know you guys appreciated it too! It’s always good to hear that from people.


As far as limits to who a defendant has testify on their behalf at trial, if there is a limit, I’ve read no rule limiting such before they’re on the stand and being asked questions.
In this example, the defendant (of child kidnapping) had over 20 character witnesses testify which resulted in the defendants mistrial and no retrial ensued afterwards, I.e. non-guilty. Granted, he lost the child to the state, but that’s a different issue.
Felonies justify hearing all witnesses to achieve the best justice imho.