perexo

Could you please advocate for my freedom and for the freedom of software developers everywhere, so that they can continue building open-source software without fear while you’re at the White House? 🙏 Thank you. Free Roman Storm

If you think I'm not afraid of hitting the post button because everything here is public, you are wrong. I am afraid. I don't know how angry they might get at me, or what else they might do to me. What I do know is that you can help me. Yes, you, the one reading this. Write a letter to the White House. Ask Mr. President what is going on with this case. Ask your congressman. Write to your state officials. Bring attention to this case. Analyze it. Ask questions. Raise awareness. Help me, and you help every other developer who could be next.

Sources: all public, all on the docket. • Dkt. 25-2: the Law360 article (Feb. 23, 2024), filed as Exhibit B: - NYC City Bar Association event setup: PDF p. 2 - La Morte pushing "systemic-type prosecution that's going to make an industry impact": PDF p. 2 - "We want the industry to take notice": PDF p. 2 - "bring the industry into compliance … Tornado Cash is an example of that": PDF p. 3 - her deputy Solowiejczyk praising Chainalysis ("find common trends and commonality"): PDF p. 3 storage.courtlistener.com/re… law360.com/consumerprotectio… • Dkt. 211: Chainalysis's own motion to quash my subpoena (Sullivan & Cromwell letter, July 22, 2025): - "moves the Court to quash the Subpoena": PDF p. 1 - my July 4 subpoena for testimony from two Chainalysis employees: PDF p. 2 - the relayer window: Tornado Cash relayer(s) "used from March to August 2022": PDF p. 2 - their admission in their own words: "a relayer node that Chainalysis operated for a period in 2022": PDF p. 3 storage.courtlistener.com/re… • Dkt. 255: July 23, 2025 trial transcript (301 PDF pages): - the government backing the quash: "Your Honor, we agree with the position outlined in the motion": PDF p. 3, lines 1-3 storage.courtlistener.com/re… • Dkt. 259: July 25, 2025 trial transcript (314 PDF pages; the whole Chainalysis colloquy runs PDF pp. 2-6): - the night-before call: "we had with Chainalysis last night, with their counsel last night": PDF p. 2, lines 12-14 - gov admits the relayer: the defense would "establish that they were running a relayer during the time period in question": PDF p. 2, lines 17-19 - "there's zero evidence that the defendant was in any way aware that Chainalysis was running a relayer": PDF p. 3, lines 1-4 - the fees: "I think the parties agree as to that part of the testimony, that the Chainalysis relayer earned fees": PDF p. 3, lines 13-16 - the judge spots the leverage: if the witness speaks, the gov will raise "all of their law enforcement work in investigating Tornado Cash": PDF p. 4, lines 1-4 - txs flowed through it: "questions about the degree to which Chainalysis was aware of the nature of certain transactions on the relayer": PDF p. 5, lines 8-10 - the judge's question: "Did you let them know that they were potentially subject to investigation or prosecution?": PDF p. 5, lines 12-13 - the prosecutor's answer: "We have discussed at a high level some of the issues surrounding the relayer with Chainalysis": PDF p. 5, lines 13-15 - the call confirmed again: "We spoke with their counsel last night, your Honor": PDF p. 6, lines 9-10 storage.courtlistener.com/re… • Dkt. 263: July 28, 2025 trial transcript (256 PDF pages): - the defense raises the Chainalysis witness problem: PDF p. 9, lines 2-4 - the Fifth: "I spoke with this witness' lawyer on Saturday who informed me that she is [taking the Fifth]": PDF p. 9, lines 12-13 - the government had been talking to Chainalysis for ~two years; Chainalysis had no notice of any criminal exposure: PDF p. 9, lines 14-20 - the defense learned of the government-Chainalysis call only after it happened, from Chainalysis's counsel: PDF p. 9, lines 21-24 - the government then asks to take it all under seal: "we would request that we would make any submissions in responses to the Court's questions under seal": PDF p. 12, lines 4-7 - the judge: "the Chainalysis witness who is planning to take the Fifth", then they move to sidebar (those pages are sealed): PDF p. 12, lines 8-10 storage.courtlistener.com/re… • Dkt. 300: order entered Aug. 25, 2026: "the Court hereby ADJOURNS the retrial to April 26, 2027" (PDF p. 1). It also notes my acquittal motion (Dkt. 229) is still pending storage.courtlistener.com/re… • Bitcoin 2026, Las Vegas (Apr 27, 2026): "Code is Free Speech: Ending the War on Bitcoin," the Blanche/Patel panel. Full transcript: conference-2026.b.tc/agenda/… and video: youtube.com/watch?v=mv7Ir_jw…

One thing before I start: everything in this post is public information from my own docket. None of it is new, and I'm not revealing anything you can't already find in the court filings yourself. The retrial just got pushed to April 26, 2027. The order came down today (Dkt. 300). My acquittal motion is still sitting there, undecided. I honestly don't know when this ends. Prosecutors are supposed to protect American interests and go after people who broke the law. A jury deadlocked on the two most serious counts against me. And still SDNY won't stop, because this case was never just about me. It's about setting an example. Don't take my word for it. Tara La Morte, the chief of SDNY's Illicit Finance and Money Laundering Unit, said it herself at a New York City Bar Association event (Law360, Feb. 23, 2024; filed on my docket as Doc. 25-2): "We want the industry to take notice." "What we're trying to do is sort of bring the industry into compliance, and I think Tornado Cash is an example of that." An example. Out of a developer who wrote code. At that same event, her deputy praised the government's blockchain-tracing partner, Chainalysis. Here is what they didn't tell the audience. All of it is from the public docket in my case. According to the trial transcripts, Chainalysis was running its OWN Tornado Cash relayer, and earning fees on the transactions flowing through it. - Chainalysis's own lawyers admitted to "a relayer node that Chainalysis operated"; my subpoena sought documents on Tornado Cash relayer(s) "used from March to August 2022." (Dkt. 211) - In open court, the prosecutor said it plainly: "I think the parties agree as to that part of the testimony, that the Chainalysis relayer earned fees." Same hearing: "there's zero evidence that the defendant was in any way aware that Chainalysis was running a relayer." (Dkt. 259, July 25, 2025) So the company that helped trace my "criminal" transactions was itself profiting from Tornado Cash transactions, while I was prosecuted over software I helped create. And when my lawyers subpoenaed them to testify? - Chainalysis moved to quash. (Dkt. 211) - The government backed them: "Your Honor, we agree with the position outlined in the motion." (Dkt. 255) - The night before, prosecutors called Chainalysis's counsel. The judge asked point-blank: "Did you let them know that they were potentially subject to investigation or prosecution?" The answer: "We have discussed at a high level some of the issues surrounding the relayer with Chainalysis." (Dkt. 259) - The Chainalysis witness took the Fifth. My lawyers learned about that call only afterward, from Chainalysis's own lawyer. (Dkt. 263) The jury never heard any of it. This spring, at the Bitcoin 2026 conference in Las Vegas, something happened that I still can't quite believe. The Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and the FBI Director, Kash Patel, sat on a panel called "Code is Free Speech." Think about that. The two top law enforcement officials in the country. Blanche told thousands of developers: if you're a coder and you're not the one committing the crime, "you are not going to be investigated and not going to be charged." He said the last administration's crypto cases were "outrageous attacks on the industry." Patel praised "the Chainalysises of the world" as FBI partners. And when the moderator pointed at the elephant in the room, my case, Tornado Cash, Roman Storm, the Acting Attorney General called it a "lingering case" they are "continuing to deal with." So here is my hypothetical question. If code is free speech, why am I still being prosecuted for writing it? And if the Chainalysises of the world are the partners, the same Chainalysis that ran its own Tornado Cash relayer and earned fees from Tornado Cash users, while I never did, why is it off the hook? They made an example out of a developer for writing code. Their own vendor ran the same infrastructure, pocketed the fees, and got a phone call instead of a prosecution. Sources 👇👇👇

Because the government wants to win. They want to hold me responsible for software I helped create and for the actions of third parties using that software, even though I never controlled it and no one else did either. Their argument is that if I had any degree of control over one part of the system, then I effectively controlled everything. That ignores how the technology actually works and disregards the technical evidence, as well as the Fifth Circuit’s ruling that no one controls the underlying smart contracts, which continue to operate autonomously to this day. This case has already created one of the most dangerous precedents for software developers. Today, no software developer is truly safe if they build software that could potentially be misused, even when they have no ability to prevent that misuse because the software has already been deployed and is beyond their control. During last year’s trial, the government presented an expert witness who testified that if I had implemented a username-and-password system on the user interface, along with a user registry, I would have been able to monitor users and prevent misuse by blocking them. That testimony ignored the technical reality that such measures would not have been effective. They were allowed to speculate about hypothetical designs and outcomes without addressing how the technology actually works in practice. The fact that the technology has continued to operate long after I stopped developing it is strong evidence that no one controls it. Numerous technical experts confirmed this, and the Fifth Circuit recognized this reality as well. The trial also showed that I was against bad actors. I never communicated with them, never conspired with them, and never attempted to help anyone commit a crime. The government’s conspiracy theory rests on the claim that my co-founders and I created this software with the intent to help criminals, simply because we could not prevent people from misusing technology that was designed to operate without centralized control. The reality is simple: I cannot stop anyone from using the Tornado Cash protocol. The government’s position is that I should have been able to. That is what I have to deal with, and I don’t know how much more time and mental energy I will have to spend fighting this battle. But I will continue fighting, because the outcome of this case affects not just me, but every software developer who builds technology that can be used by others.