Originally published at: Crypto6 Day 7: Fake FBI ‘Expert’ Erin Montgomery Won’t Testify @ Trial | Free Keene
Attorney Sisti Cross Examines Government Witnesses
We learned today that Erin Montgomery the supposed leading blockchain analysis expert for the FBI who was disqualified as an expert wouldn’t be testifying at all, not even as a non-expert ‘witness’!
We also learned that the FBI misled the jury about the average age of people the church sold bitcoin to via selectively picking out older folks from a Telegram folder on the church’s computer that was seized and getting an ‘average age’ thereof from this selected pool.
We learned about some of the scams, the feds trying to paint Ian as having partaken in a scam against a bank where the bank lost no money and was in fact authorized to speak on behalf of Nobody in the effort to recover money for the Church Of The Invisible Hand.
We discovered the government was very uncomfortable about talking about the misdeeds they committed the day of the March 2021 raid as they damaged cameras, failed to comply with warrant requirements that they announce themselves before entering, and so forth. They were not authorized to conduct a no knock raid like we had all assumed originally based on the mere fact the didn’t and no knock raids have become the norm despite that they’re only supposed to be utilized selectively in particularly dangerous circumstances.
We learned the FBI is trying to claim that they had to seize Ian’s computer in order to get photos to investigate scammers when in fact they could have just asked for them, like OTHER law enforcement agencies did.
It is shown that Ian and the church have a policy of investigating transactions that might involve people being scammed and that he called one such victim. It’s the case other victims were called, but that’s for another day. Ultimately we learned no amount of procedure will ever fully stop a determined scammer. As neither the church’s own efforts nor the banks stopped any of these victims from getting scammed.
Day 7
~10+ supports turned out
FBI agent from other day continues…
Cross examination by defense
Q You went through 1% of transactions?
A I don’t know
[it was wayyyy less than 1%, it was more something like less than 0.013333333 based on further testimony]
Q You only went through Telegram photos?
A Yes, that is where the 59 were from
Q Your job was to jut select specific photos?
A Yes
Q For ages, you skipped out on people?
A Yes
Q You didn’t go through and testify to all of them and for some reason you skipped over some, why?
A I don’t know
[isn’t this a big red flag that the government is up to no good? remember that they are trying to get the jury to believe Ian worked with scammers to launder money and preyed on elderly folks in the process despite every one of the governments witnesses testifying to the fact he didn’t know the scammers and there was no reason to believe he worked with anyone on anything in this regard]
Q In your limited sample there was an active investigation in regard to one person, what was going on?
A We can follow up with info from computer
Q The info came from Ian’s computer right?
A Yes
Q That is where you got the ID right?
A Yea
[so they’re admitting here that if it was not for Ian doing know your customer the government would be able to ID and identify the scammers at all]
Q You would not have that if not for Ian right?
A Correct
Q Were you able to follow up with general fellow?
A Jeremy Harmon, no
Q Wasn’t he a scammer?
A Yes
Q Is there any info Jeremy Harmon ever met with Ian?
A I don’t know
[aww did you even investigate this case? how can someone be so incompetent or ignorant? ohh that’s right, they work for government]
Q Fredrick Dryer claimed to be in oil?
A Yea
[Fredrick Dryer is the scammer]
Q She lost a lot money and was in contract for a long time right?
A Yea
Q Any contact with Ian?
A No
[ok, so there is confirmation that the scammer has had NO contact with Ian in person or otherwise]
Q He is still in contact with victim, right?
A Yea
[they are talking about the victim I believe still being in contact with the scammer, yes, you heard that right]
Q Was it you who said you didn’t want to follow up with the scammer?
A Not exactly what I said, but in a manor of speaking
[trying to wiggle out of it because it makes ya case look bad, you don’t really care about the victim at all]
With info recently provided we are going to follow up
[what he means is because they were called out the prior day on this they did some immediate ‘deciding’ to do something or to claim to be planning to do something now that the public gets to know they never intended to investigate any of the scammers, remember the FBI had Ian’s computer for many years, so they had plenty of time to investigate the scammers]
Q Dryer is guy who took money?
A Right
Q Ian is not the scammer, right?
A Correct
[and case begins to fall apart even more]
Q Are you pursuing William Millers?
A No
Q In Miller case are you investigating scammer who of which there was ID for?
A No
[remember, all of these scammers can be ID’d explicitly because Ian and the churches policy of doing KYC and then retaining that information for YEARS, this was done because it was warranted and reduced risks like this while still being as respective of peoples privacy as feasible for the types of transactions occurring]
Q Scamming happens with and without crypto right?
A Yea
Q None of the investigation appears to have cut off scam, right?
A I think banks stopped some scams
[aww ok, that isn’t the result of the investigation you’re doing though, but ok]
Q Some banks let 4 transactions go through right?
A Yea
[ie even red flags don’t stop banks from cutting off a customers ability to do the transactions, but it’s not even clear these were red flags as the only basis is a customers age effectively, and some old people aren’t mentally incapable of making their own decisions, which was pretty much what appeared to be the cases here even if they ended up making poor choices]
Q She transacted business for $240,000 and $210,000 and nobody raised a concern, is that normal?
A I’ve seen various actions
Q Nobody questions on Jerry transaction either right?
A Yea
Q The only one who questioned it was Ian, right?
A I can’t recall
[how convenient, the banks didn’t question any of the transactions, but Ian did, and took steps to try and stop it if it appeared to be fraud, failing to defeat fraud happens because scammers are often good at what they do]
Q None of the banks checked, but Ian did, you aware of that?
A I did not sit in on her testimony
Next the government plays some audio of a recorded phone call.
Freeman on Nobody call to Bank Of America call and Ian on Bank Of America Call $350,000 return thereof
Freeman made first call, audio played out of order
Nobody made 2nd call
Q Do you know if nobody authorized Ian to speak on his behalf of nobody?
A No
[they are trying to suggest that Ian’s committing fraud when talking to the bank because he gives Nobody’s name when he calls in the assistance of Nobody in the recovery of church money]
Q Did you know the bank did return the $350,000 on that account?
A No idea
[did the FBI even investigate this case?]
Q 2nd call was in pursuit of additional $40,000
A No idea
Q Do you know no bank lost any money on this?
A I don’t know
Q After 5 years you would think you would know, right?
A It was handled by another employee
[how convenient, they just have so many agents that you can’t actually question them about anything]
Q You watched swat team film?
A First time I saw it was in court
[might be a good time to direct people to watch the security footage video themselves]
Q Special swat gear, you use cameras right?
A Just started using them
Q Where are cameras supposed to be used?
A I don’t know
Q Will you be surprised to hear cameras were attached to helmets in raid of Ian’s residence?
A I don’t know
Q Is there a reason they would not want to record?
A No
Q Any videos of swat team we can show jury?
A Not that I know of
[again how convenient of it for the government to lose footage like that, fortunately there is some video from security camera footage prior to the government conveniently ‘disabling’ the camera, or maybe I should I more accurately describe it as physically destroying the cameras]
Q What is that in the video?
A Bearcat
Q What is that?
A 2nd Bearcat
Q What is guy doing?
A Throwing something, in my experience a flash bang grenade
Q Did you see any one warning people in house?
A I can’t speak to that
Q Did you see people hiding?
A I wouldn’t say that
Q You did not see anyone approach, right?
A No, I didn’t
Q Flash bang grenade, right?
A Yes, based on my experience
Before someone enters the house there should be a knock and announce
Q Do you see Bearcat with battering ram and broken window attached?
A Yes
Q Beatcat obviously entered house right?
A Yes
Q What is that on the helmets?
A Goggles
Q What is mounted on top?
A Night vision goggles
Q Any cameras?
A I can’t tell from that frame
Not the case agent at the time so I don’t know
[he knows, he just doesn’t want to answer, he’s watching the video remember]
Q Any inquiry into means of entry when you became case agent?
A No
Q What is that?
A An aerial drone like thing, it is used for clearing spaces to avoid agents being harmed
Q for surveilling right?
A Right
Q Someone saw it right?
[he’s referring to the video as it’s being piloted from afar]
It wouldn’t be useful if no one was watching it right?
A No
Q Who is that guy?
A Nobody
Q This fella?
A Mathew Roach
Q Was he charged with anything?
A No
Q Of course that is Ian
A Yea
Q Did anyone resist?
A No to my knowledge
Q Who’s this?
A Bonnie
Q Bonnie is married to Ian?
A I believe so
Q She charged?
A No
[#2 has a body cam according to state rep who came out to support Ian in the Crypto6 trial]
Q What is this?
A He appears to be taking camera down
[pretty sure this is where he’s physically destroying the camera, not carefully taking it down as it might sound from his wording]
Q He doesn’t want people to know what he is doing?
A It’s for officer safety
[of course it is, everything is for officer safety, why didn’t you just drop a bomb on the place, wouldn’t that have been safer than risk officer safety by going in? ohh I remember why they don’t do that now… in the 1980s they actually did drop a bomb on a black activists house and the public was absolutely outraged that they haven’t done it since as far as I’m aware]
Q Did you ever replace it?
A I can’t speak to that
[I can speak to this, the answer is no, WE replaced the windows and the doors and cleaned up the multiple buildings that the government destroyed and damaged, though I’ll admit now that it appears that one person who helped with cleanup may have been an informant or deep undercover gent… maybe more on that to come… maybe not… haven’t yet decided given they are still deep undercover and sometimes it’s best to keep your enemy’s closer]
Q What is this?
A End of Bearcat
Q Do you know what it is approaching?
A Porch
Q What is it doing now?
A I can’t see
[liar, it is ripping out a window clear as day, see video above, you’d have to be blind not to see what the bearcat is doing]
Q Did you know how many agents were there having taken over the case?
A I don’t
Q So the only reason we know anything was because of Ian’s security footage right?
A yea, this was recorded by Ian’s security cameras
Q Lots of money coming into church accounts, right?
A Yes, money went into different accounts
Q Money came into and out of accounts, right?
A Yes
Q When you raise money have to exchange right?
A yes
Q You aware he purchased bitcoin, right?
A I’m not aware of that
[how can the case agent not be aware that the main target in his case purchased bitcoin???? in a case that surrounded bitcoin and of which other agents have testified to????]
Q They were purchased by Ian or the church right?
A Right
it was his property
[ohh now he amazingly remembers all of a sudden what this case was about]
Prosecutor cross examines
Q Freeman used money to buy bitcoin to and then sell it?
A Right
Q Did we show records from Kraken?
A Yea
Q $280,000?
A Yes
Q How much?
A $240,000
Q Under 1% fee?
A Yea
[they are trying to show here that the fees the church charged were excessive and only possible because of some sort of criminal activity even though they were in line with market rates the entire time or a bit below them even, an actual exchange is going to have the volume and so the fees are going to be low, a vending operator is going to have higher costs because they maintain the machines, collect physical case, have employees, need to rent space from business owners for each machine, etc, and the same applies to sellers online for a various of other reasons, like banks not wanting to do business with you because they perceive you as a competitor or being too risky, and that doesn’t mean crime, as some banks can and probably do specialize in high risk clients, but they also charge more for providing such services, and in fact most banks charge a fee simply for having a cash deposit account and receiving large amounts of cash or cash over a certain amount for any account for that matter]
Q What did Ian charge?
A 10% fee
[it’s humorous that they are trying to make Ian out to be a criminal over what is literally just regular capitalism, or in this case really a charitable project]
Q Search, what did you testify about?
A Interviews, cell phone, computer
Q Most on?
A Cell and PC
Q Where was PC found?
A Mr Freeman’s residence
[pretty sure it was found in the studio, but ok lets go with that]
Q Did Sisti ask a single question about interviews?
A No
Q You have background in swat?
A Yes
Q Point?
A Officer safety
Q Always use same tactics?
A No, it depends on the situation like if there are weapons inside
[that’s curious considering you raided in 2016 and didn’t take similar action then]
Q As far as swat tactics are concerned what is the purpose?
A Just amount of force to ensure you are in control
[that is funny considering they testify at some point it is to use an overwhelming amount of force]
Q Any shots fired?
A No
Q Any one hurt?
A No, not to my knowledge
[liars, there broken window injured Bonnie in the raid and she ended up with bloodied feet because they made her put on shoes with glass in them]
Q Were objectives obtained?
A Yes
A picture of matts room is shown on screen
Q What is this?
A High powered weapons and several types of riffle
3 pistils, ballistic helmet, vest
Q Where did picture come from?
A Matt Roach’s room
Q On day of search?
A Yes
Q Does room matter?
A No
They could be used by anybody
[note: if only Matt has access to Matt’s room which I’m 99.99% sure is the case here how does anybody get access to these weapons?]
Q Sisti asked you about banks stopping transactions?
A Yes
Q Was the bank ever told it was to buy bitcoin?
A No
Q Would he tell buyers what to tell banks?
A Yes
Q Did he say for bitcoin?
A No
Q Did he say for something else?
A Yes, church donation, investment, or rare coin
Q Do you know if defense told truth about Nobody authorized right to speak on his behalf
A No
[yea, except the problem is the burden of proof is on you guys to prove that something illegal was happening and you’re not providing any such evidence, but are trying to imply through deceit and lying that people were up to no good]
Q Did banks close many accounts?
A Yes
[and did they ever tell Ian or the church or anybody why? because ian later testifies only 1 bank ever told him why and it wasn’t because he was committing a crime]
Q Did banks say he was money service business?
A Yes
[this is false, the only financial institution that said they thought he may be a money service business was a small credit union and when he protested with a legal letter and other evidence responded to him with their belief was he had strong evidence to show the MSB rules didn’t apply to him even though they still did close his account]
Q Did they say he has to register?
A Yes
[this is misleading because they didn’t really say what he had to do, but said more like what he probably needed to do, and that was without having more knowledge or full knowledge of everything, aka the Seth Hiiple letter saying his church wasn’t required to register under MSB laws, etc]
Q Did Mr Freeman provide passport for fraudster?
A No, we had to seize it
[they didn’t ask for it! How would freeman have ever even known they were investigating when they didn’t ask or say they were and were in fact NOT investigating until the defense called out the FBI for NOT investigating the scammers during the trial??? if anyone wonders why we call these FBI guys liars and thieves this is a perfect example of why that is]
Q What was break in case?
A A victim got a screenshot
[Remember that if they had contacted the seller of the bitcoin, aka Ian/the church they could have had access to the IDs of the scammers, but it’s because they were NOT investigating the scammers EVER till the trial started and the feds got called out for not investigating the scammers that they purportedly started investigating the scammers. Rather what they were investigating for the past decade was Ian, the church, Free Talk Live, for the reason of political persecution. The feds don’t like the Free State Project and have numerous active open investigations on Free Staters of which 2 out of 8-9 that exist are more publicly known and disclosed to exist, but evidence of other investigations exist, aka the main known ones include the LBRY case with Jeremy Kauffman and the Crypto6 case, but of course the main thing they don’t like is being called out 365 days a year on nationally syndicated radio for doing really terrible stuff like distributing pictures of children being raped, encouraging distribution, and increasing server capacity thereof, for calling that out the feds raided FTL studio in March of 2016, just two weeks post a show where Mark Edge called them out on it in what was known as the playpen case, and that raid of FTL in 2016 there were no charges because the objective was to smear Ian and undermine FTL. The supposed connection made no sense as the suppose connection to playpen was a year old case where they had already sanctimoniously raided because that is STANDARD protocol, else those who actually committed crimes would be able to destroy evidence, so it made no sense to raid a year AFTER that unless the real objective was to silence a nationally syndicated radio show of which was the only mainstream non-technical outlet to cover the case where the FBI f’d up at all.]
Q What is challenge to investigate?
A Fake names, overseas, fake phone #s
Q Following the money is a challenge?
A Yes
Q Why?
A Bitcoin is hard to trace
[it’s a public blockchain- tracing it isn’t the problem like it might be with privacy coins, it may not be evidence usable at trial, but it is usable to investigate and get warrants to conduct raids]
Q Who changed money to bitcoin?
A Mr Freeman
Just so we don’t have any misunderstanding we will go over photos we missed again.
Q Average age?
A 59
[this is again misleading because they selectively picked out pictures of older folks to get an older average age]
[the prosecutor goes through the folder showing the younger people now that were skipped over given they were called out by the defense for skipping over those young people]
[we should also remember here that banks didn’t stop or even red flag these transactions, but even if they red flag a transaction it doesn’t mean they have to stop the transaction from going through as the governments own witnesses evidenced via the credit union fraud department testimony]
Defense cross examines
Q All were under 59 right?
A Yes
Q They were the ones left out yesterday?
A Right
Q Kraken $280,000 purchase, fee attached right?
A Yes
Q When buying always trying to buy at lowest price?
A Yes
Q Nothing illegal about buying?
A Right
Q Do you know where money goes?
A Fostering peace
Q Do you know about homeless, orphanages, etc?
A I heard about that in testimony
Q In regard to excess money you don’t know where it goes?
A No
[ok, so they can’t claim this given that they’re seizing the money and freezing the accounts, they have the bank records, etc. they do know where the money goes because if they didn’t they couldn’t seize what they did]
Q Regarding swat factors include
– bars on windows
– history of violence
– whether or not know of advocating overthrow of country
None of this is true in regards to Freeman, right?
A I was not part of any of that
[again, how convenient that they can’t provide FBI agents that can testify to everything, but only that of what benefits the prosecution]
Q Anyone give you a memo why they had to be violent with a peace church?
A No
Q Don’t you think anyone there had the hell scared out of them that night?
A I can’t say
[really????]
Q Did anyone ever know if he had violent background before search?
A I don’t know
Q No one ever resisted, right?
A No
Q You guys were investigators right?
A Yes
Q In regard to Nobody you didn’t ask Nobody?
[I believe he is referencing the call to the bank were Ian Freeman provided the name Nobody when asked about the account he was calling about that they tried to make it sound like it was some sort of fraud in play by Freeman, when in fact it was authorized by Nobody that Freeman could speak on his behalf]
A No
Q No money was lost to bank with Freeman speaking for Nobody?
A No
Prosecutor questions agent
Brings up conversation where Renee says Ian is rich
[not much actually said, they’re just trying to re-iterate that Ian is “rich”]
Defense cross examines agent again
Q What does Freeman drive?
A I don’t know
Q Does he live in a mansion?
A I don’t know
[really? come on, you investigated this guy didn’t you??? Freeman has a parsonage and lives in one room of a duplex with the first floor containing a ministry radio studio, and one of the rooms on this side of the duplex is rented out, and the other side is also rented out by the church, as is are other church properties, but there is one church property where a portion of it is also used for church activities as well elsewhere though]
New witeness
Name: Rebecca
Kentucky- lived there for 20 years
59 years old
Employed school cafeteria worker
She worked at walmart prior
Not maried
Previously was married for 38 years
Has 1 child
Why not married? Divorced after physical and mental abuse
Q You join match.com?
A Yes
Jerry Flowers
Q How did that start?
A He reached out and then I
Q Then?
A He asked me to join Telegram
Q Did you know what it was at the time?
A No
Q What is it?
A Like text messaging
Q How often?
A Every other day
Q Talked about what?
A Kids, life
He lived in Mobile, Alabama and traveled a lot
Q What was intent?
A Companion
Q What happened?
A He got sick and needed money for doctor
Q He needed you to send him money?
A Yes
Q Why?
A I was vulnerable
Q How?
A Go to bank and wire money
Q How did you know where to send it?
A He would tell me
Then he went in hospital
Then I got nervous
Q How long?
A Weeks
Q You got nervous?
A It scared me, I never did that before
[I think the gist of this testimony here is she was thinking twice about having had sent a large sum of money to what is a complete stranger]
Q Was it sent to flowers?
A No, different people
Q What way?
A Bitcoin
Q How did you know how to do that?
A Via phone calls from flowers
Q How did you know who to send it to?
A First time it was to freeman
Q Did you know what freeman did?
A Yea, bitcoin
Q Did you sent photos to flowers?
A Yes
Q Is this your drivers license?
A Yes
Q Did you know what ftl_ian was?
A No
Q You sent to flowers?
A I did
Q Did you have bank account at US bank?
A Yes I did
Q Can you see amount of wire?
A Yes, $20,000
Q is this your handwriting?
A Yes
What was written:
“I Rebecca authorized and completed a wire transfer in the amount of $20,000 for purchase of bitcoin from ftl_ian on Telegram. I understand this transaction is non-refundable”
Signed and dated by Rebecca
Q When you were doing wires were you communicating with flowers?
A Yes
Q Did Mr Freeman ever call you?
A Yes, he called and confirmed I wanted to do transaction
Q Did he ask what bitcoin was?
A No
Q Before today had you been to New Hampshire?
A No
[this is referring to wire to NH Peace church ian b feeman dba nh peace church , where dba stands for doing business as]
Q Ever get any of your money back?
A No
[aww you signed that you understood the transaction was non-refundable why would anyone think they’d get their money back???]
Q How did this effect you?
A It ruined my life
[I ran out of time to finish typing up the summary of day 7 of the trial, so we’ll have to come back and finish this later.. stay tuned… ]