Constitutional Violations Part 2: Deep Analysis of Due Process in United States v. Wright

The case of United States v. Wright represents far more than a simple tax dispute—it embodies a fundamental constitutional crisis that threatens the very foundations of due process, fair notice, and financial liberty in America. This analysis examines the profound constitutional violations at the heart of this prosecution and their implications for every American's fundamental rights.

The Constitutional Foundation Under Attack

The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. This fundamental protection forms the bedrock of American justice, ensuring that citizens receive fair notice of what conduct is prohibited and adequate opportunity to defend themselves against government accusations.

In United States v. Wright, these constitutional guarantees have been systematically violated through a prosecution that criminalizes conduct performed without knowledge, notice, or intent—setting a dangerous precedent that undermines the constitutional protections every American relies upon.

The Due Process Violation: Prosecuting Unknown Conduct

The most egregious constitutional violation in this case stems from the government's attempt to prove criminal intent for actions taken without any knowledge of the underlying circumstances. According to the indictment, IRS collection enforcement began in February 2021, yet Wright remained completely unaware of any collection action until contacted by prosecutors in 2024—nearly three years later.

"How can the government prove malicious and willful intent to evade collection when the defendant had absolutely no knowledge that any collection action was taking place?"

This fundamental question exposes the constitutional crisis at the heart of this prosecution. The Due Process Clause requires that criminal liability be based on actual knowledge and intent, not on information that was never communicated to the defendant. By prosecuting Wright for actions taken in complete ignorance of the government's collection efforts, prosecutors are attempting to criminalize conduct that cannot, as a matter of constitutional law, form the basis for criminal liability.

The Fair Notice Doctrine

The Supreme Court has consistently held that the Due Process Clause requires fair notice of what conduct is prohibited. In Lambert v. California (1957), the Court established that criminal liability cannot be imposed for conduct that a reasonable person would not know was illegal. This principle is directly violated when the government prosecutes someone for actions taken without knowledge of the circumstances that allegedly make those actions criminal.

One of the withdrawals in question was Wright's withdrawal of his cryptocurrency from Kraken exchange that was performed in direct response to Kraken's mandatory account closure notice in 2023, which cited "security reasons" but made no mention of any IRS collection action. A reasonable person in Wright's position would have no basis to understand that complying with Kraken's withdrawal instructions could constitute criminal conduct.

The Information Asymmetry Problem

This case presents a stark example of information asymmetry—where the government possessed crucial information that was never communicated to the defendant, yet seeks to hold the defendant criminally liable for actions taken without that information. This creates a constitutional impossibility: how can someone form criminal intent regarding circumstances they know nothing about?

The government's theory of prosecution essentially argues that Wright should have somehow divined the existence of collection actions that were never communicated to him. This standard would make every American vulnerable to criminal prosecution for failing to anticipate government actions they were never informed about—a clear violation of fundamental fairness and due process.

The Precedent-Setting Danger

If this prosecution succeeds, it will establish several dangerous precedents that threaten every American's constitutional rights:

• Criminalization of Unknowing Conduct: Citizens can be prosecuted for actions taken without knowledge of relevant circumstances
• Information Asymmetry Liability: Failure to anticipate undisclosed government actions becomes criminal
• Self-Custody as Evidence: Exercising control over one's own property becomes evidence of criminal intent
• Retroactive Criminalization: Legal conduct becomes criminal based on undisclosed government actions

The Self-Custody Constitutional Right

Beyond the specific due process violations, this case threatens to criminalize the fundamental right to financial self-custody—the ability to maintain control over one's own property without relying on third-party intermediaries. This right is deeply rooted in American constitutional tradition and essential to financial liberty.

Property Rights and the Fifth Amendment

The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause protects private property rights, including the right to control and manage one's own assets. Cryptocurrency represents a new form of property that enables unprecedented individual control—true self-custody without reliance on banks or other intermediaries.

By treating self-custody as evidence of criminal intent, this prosecution effectively criminalizes the exercise of fundamental property rights. This approach would make every American who chooses to maintain direct control over their assets—whether cryptocurrency, cash, or other property—potentially subject to criminal prosecution.

The Weaponization of Family Harassment

The constitutional violations in this case extend beyond the prosecution itself to include systematic harassment of Wright's innocent family members by IRS Criminal Investigation agents. This conduct violates multiple constitutional principles:

Fourth Amendment Violations

The repeated harassment of family members who have no connection to the alleged conduct constitutes unreasonable searches and seizures of their privacy and peace. These agents have terrorized Wright's elderly grandmother-in-law, mother, siblings, and extended family members without any legal basis or connection to the case.

First Amendment Chilling Effects

The family harassment serves to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights by creating fear and intimidation around association with Wright and his legal defense. This tactic is designed to isolate defendants and discourage support for their constitutional rights.

Media Manipulation and Prejudicial Publicity

Before any evidence was presented in court, federal prosecutors released prejudicial statements to local media designed to poison public opinion and "fix" the case through media manipulation. This conduct violates the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and represents classic prosecutorial misconduct.

The timing and content of these media releases demonstrate a deliberate strategy to prejudice potential jurors and create public pressure for conviction before the constitutional issues can be properly adjudicated. This approach undermines the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial.

The Broader Constitutional Crisis

This case represents more than individual constitutional violations—it embodies a broader crisis in the application of constitutional principles to emerging technologies. As cryptocurrency and other digital assets become increasingly important to American financial life, the constitutional framework must adapt to protect fundamental rights in new contexts.

Technology and Constitutional Rights

The Constitution's protections must evolve to address new technologies while maintaining their fundamental principles. Just as the Fourth Amendment has been applied to digital communications and electronic devices, property rights and due process protections must extend to cryptocurrency and digital assets.

This case will determine whether Americans can exercise self-custody over digital assets without fear of criminal prosecution based on undisclosed government actions. The outcome will shape the constitutional landscape for financial technology and individual liberty for generations to come.

The Path Forward: Constitutional Restoration

Defending the constitutional principles at stake in United States v. Wright requires a comprehensive approach that addresses both the immediate violations and the broader implications for American liberty:

Immediate Constitutional Defenses

• Due Process Challenge: The prosecution violates fundamental due process by criminalizing conduct performed without knowledge or notice
• Fair Notice Defense: Wright had no fair notice that his conduct could be considered criminal
• Information Asymmetry Argument: Criminal intent cannot be proven when defendant lacked access to relevant information
• Property Rights Protection: Self-custody is a fundamental property right that cannot be criminalized

Long-Term Constitutional Implications

Beyond this individual case, the constitutional principles at stake will determine whether Americans can maintain financial sovereignty in the digital age. The right to self-custody represents a fundamental aspect of property rights and financial liberty that must be protected against government overreach.

The Stakes for American Liberty

The constitutional violations in United States v. Wright threaten every American's fundamental rights. If the government can prosecute citizens for actions taken without knowledge of relevant circumstances, no one is safe from arbitrary prosecution based on information they were never given.

If self-custody can be treated as evidence of criminal intent, every American who chooses to maintain control over their own property becomes vulnerable to prosecution. If family harassment and media manipulation become acceptable prosecutorial tactics, the constitutional protections that safeguard all Americans are meaningless.

Conclusion: A Constitutional Crossroads

United States v. Wright represents a constitutional crossroads that will determine whether the fundamental principles of due process, fair notice, and property rights will be preserved or abandoned in the face of prosecutorial overreach. The outcome of this case will shape the constitutional landscape for financial technology, individual liberty, and government accountability for generations to come.

The constitutional violations in this case are not merely technical legal issues—they represent a direct assault on the principles that protect every American from arbitrary government power. Defending these principles is not just about protecting one individual—it is about preserving the constitutional framework that safeguards the liberty of all Americans.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact, but neither is it a blank check for prosecutorial abuse. The principles of due process and fair notice must be preserved, especially when emerging technologies challenge traditional legal frameworks."

As this case moves forward, the constitutional principles at stake demand the attention and support of every American who values liberty, due process, and the rule of law. The defense of these principles in United States v. Wright is ultimately the defense of constitutional government itself.