Why My Case Demands Amicus Support from the Crypto Community

I never imagined that following the fundamental principle of cryptocurrency — "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins" — would land me in federal court facing criminal charges. Yet here I am, fighting not just for my freedom, but for the rights of every American who believes in financial sovereignty and the basic security practice of self-custody.

My case, United States v. Wright (Docket No. 25-3261), is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and I am formally calling on the cryptocurrency community, civil liberties organizations, and legal professionals to file amicus curiae briefs in support of our constitutional challenge. The deadline for these "friend of the court" briefs is August 20, 2025 — just days away — and your voice could be the difference between protecting our rights and setting a dangerous precedent that criminalizes self-custody for millions of Americans.

The Precedent That Threatens Us All

This case is not just about one person's legal troubles. It represents a fundamental question about whether the government can criminalize the act of moving your own cryptocurrency to a wallet you control. If the prosecution succeeds, they will have created a legal framework that treats standard security practices as criminal concealment, giving federal authorities unprecedented power to prosecute anyone who moves crypto to self-custody while having any outstanding obligations to the government.

The implications are staggering. Consider the millions of Americans who hold cryptocurrency and may have tax disputes, student loans, or other government obligations. Under the precedent this case could set, any of them could face federal criminal charges simply for following basic security advice and moving their assets to a hardware wallet or self-custody solution.

How Government Confusion Became Criminal Charges

The facts of my case illustrate how prosecutorial overreach can transform government incompetence into criminal liability for ordinary citizens. In March 2021, the IRS sent a levy notice to my attorney regarding "Payward Ventures" — a corporate holding company name that meant nothing to me at the time. The notice did not clearly identify this entity as Kraken, the cryptocurrency exchange where I maintained an account.

When I received this notice through my lawyer in April 2021, I had no way of knowing that "Payward Ventures" referred to Kraken. The government provided no explanation, no cross-reference, and no clear indication that this obscure corporate name was connected to any exchange I used. This is a critical point that goes to the heart of the constitutional issues in this case: how can someone comply with a legal obligation when the government fails to provide adequate notice of what that obligation entails?

For nearly two years, I continued to use my Kraken account normally, unaware of any connection to the "Payward Ventures" levy. Then, in January 2023, Kraken suddenly closed my account, citing unspecified "security reasons." The exchange provided no explanation beyond this vague justification, and certainly made no mention of any government action or legal proceedings.

Faced with an unexpected account closure and concerned about the security of my assets, I did what any responsible cryptocurrency holder would do: I withdrew my funds to a self-custody wallet that I controlled. This was not an attempt to hide assets or evade any legal obligations. It was a standard security measure recommended by every major figure in the cryptocurrency space, from Andreas Antonopoulos to the exchanges themselves.

"Yet the government now characterizes this routine security practice as criminal concealment. They argue that I should have somehow known that 'Payward Ventures' meant Kraken, and that I should have anticipated that the account closure was related to the levy notice from nearly two years earlier."

The Constitutional Questions at Stake

My case presents several critical constitutional questions that extend far beyond cryptocurrency and touch on fundamental principles of due process, fair notice, and property rights. These are the issues that make amicus support so crucial — they represent legal questions that will affect not just the crypto community, but anyone who values constitutional protections against government overreach.

Due Process and Fair Notice

The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Central to this guarantee is the principle of fair notice — the government must provide clear and adequate warning of what conduct is prohibited before it can impose criminal penalties.

In my case, the government's levy notice failed this basic constitutional test. By referring only to "Payward Ventures" without clearly identifying it as Kraken, the IRS created a situation where compliance was impossible. How can someone be expected to comply with a legal obligation when they cannot reasonably understand what that obligation requires?

The Right to Control Your Own Property

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." While this amendment is often discussed in the context of physical searches, it also establishes a fundamental principle about the relationship between individuals and their property.

Cryptocurrency represents a new form of property, but the constitutional principles governing property rights remain the same. When I moved my cryptocurrency to self-custody, I was exercising the most basic property right — the right to control and secure my own assets. The government's position that this action can be criminalized simply because of outstanding obligations fundamentally undermines this constitutional protection.

Why the Crypto Community Must Act

The cryptocurrency community has always understood that self-custody is not just a technical recommendation — it is a fundamental principle that underlies the entire philosophy of decentralized finance. The phrase "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins" is not merely a security slogan; it represents a core belief in individual sovereignty and the right to control your own financial destiny.

My case threatens to criminalize this fundamental principle. If the government succeeds in establishing that self-custody can be treated as criminal concealment, they will have effectively outlawed one of the most basic practices in cryptocurrency. The chilling effect on the entire ecosystem would be immediate and devastating.

The Urgent Timeline

The deadline for amicus briefs in my case is August 20, 2025 — just days away. Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29, amicus briefs must be filed no later than seven days after the principal brief of the party being supported. My opening brief is due August 13, 2025, which means the window for amicus support is extremely narrow.

This tight timeline makes immediate action essential. Organizations that are considering filing amicus briefs need to begin preparation now. The brief must comply with specific formatting requirements, include proper disclosures, and address the legal issues in a way that complements rather than duplicates my legal team's arguments.

How to Get Involved

If your organization is interested in filing an amicus brief in support of my case, time is of the essence. Please contact our legal team immediately at legal@selfcustodyisnotacrime.com with "Amicus Brief - Wright v. United States" in the subject line.

Our legal team can provide:

• Copies of all relevant case documents and filings
• Information about the specific legal issues and arguments
• Coordination with other potential amici to avoid duplication
• Guidance on court requirements and formatting
• Assistance with deadline management and filing procedures

A Personal Appeal

I never wanted to become a test case for these important principles. I was simply trying to secure my assets using the best practices recommended by every expert in the cryptocurrency space. The fact that this routine security measure has resulted in federal criminal charges illustrates how far prosecutorial priorities have strayed from common sense and constitutional principles.

But since I find myself in this position, I am determined to fight not just for my own freedom, but for the rights of everyone who believes in financial sovereignty and constitutional government. I cannot win this fight alone. The government has unlimited resources and the power of the federal bureaucracy behind them. I have the truth, the Constitution, and hopefully, the support of everyone who understands what is at stake.

"Your amicus brief could be the voice that helps the Ninth Circuit understand the broader implications of this case. Your expertise could provide the context that helps the court see beyond the government's narrow framing of the issues."

The deadline is August 20, 2025. The window is closing rapidly. But there is still time to make your voice heard and to stand up for the principles that make cryptocurrency and constitutional government possible.

I am asking for your help not just as someone facing criminal charges, but as someone who believes that the future of financial freedom depends on the outcome of this case. Please consider filing an amicus brief. Please help us defend the fundamental right to control your own property. Please help us ensure that "Not Your Keys, Not Your Coins" remains a principle of empowerment rather than a pathway to criminal liability.

The stakes have never been higher. The time to act is now.