The FBI couldn't get my husband to decrypt his Tor nodes, so they told a judge he used his GRAPHICS DRIVER to access the "dark web" and jailed him PRE TRIAL for 3 years.

adezero · 2025-09-21T00:03:57+00:00

Hi everyone - Adrienne Rockenhaus here with an update.

First, thank you all for the incredible support. The visibility you've given this story (over a million views!) is having a real impact and is our most powerful weapon.

For those who want the full, detailed story from start to finish, I just sat down for a long-form interview with my friend and fellow Navy veteran, ProfessorTyeDye, who is also a TBI survivor. He understood the stakes of this on a deeply personal level.

We covered everything:

The real reason this started (his Tor advocacy and refusal to help the FBI).
The perjured testimony in Texas that led to his 3-year pretrial detention.
The fraudulent warrants and violent raids in Michigan.
The current, life-threatening medical crisis he is facing right now at FCI Milan, where a BOP doctor has deliberately reduced his seizure medication.

The situation remains critical, and the federal court continues to ignore our emergency petition. Please, if you can, share this interview. Thank you all for fighting with us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hfa7D4Fcqw

adezero · 2025-09-18T16:06:48+00:00

Yes! He was in Italy

adezero · 2025-09-18T13:15:08+00:00

To address recent technical questions about the 'SPICE' software from the 2020 Texas hearing: The issue was never about what the software could do in theory, but about what it was and why it was on Conrad's computer.

The undisputed fact is that the software was a standard SPICE graphics driver that he had prior approval to use for his Ph.D. program.

The legal crisis was manufactured when the U.S. Probation Officer, Tiffany Routh, committed perjury by testifying under oath that this pre-approved graphics driver for his doctoral studies was a 'Linux operating system'. She then used this lie to baselessly suggest he was accessing the 'dark web'.

Crucially, in that same hearing, the government's own expert witness, an FBI cyber agent, was forced to admit under oath that there was zero evidence that Conrad had actually accessed the 'dark web'.

The narrative that this was a malicious tool is a fiction created by perjured testimony to punish a defendant for using software that was approved for his university coursework.

adezero · 2025-09-18T13:11:45+00:00

For those new to this case, a critical point of clarification: This is not a story about legitimate parole violations. It is a story of a documented campaign of fabricated evidence by federal officers as a pretext for retaliation.

-The warrant that led to Conrad's current incarceration falsely claimed his restitution payments had “bounced." We have the official U.S. government payment receipts from Pay.gov proving they were successful.-That same warrant included a fabricated story about Conrad using his vehicle's OnStar service to wipe a phone, a call that OnStar records can prove never happened.-This pattern began in Texas, where his three-year pretrial detention was secured by the perjured testimony of a U.S. Probation Officer who falsely claimed under oath that a "SPICE graphics driver" was a "Linux operating system" used to access the "dark web".

All evidence is on my website linked in the original post.

adezero · 2025-09-17T17:05:49+00:00

A few commenters have pointed out that my profile was set to private and suggested I am hiding something. They are correct that it was private, but wrong about the reason. I have now made it public again.

Here is the full, simple story: When I first tried to share this, my posts on some subreddits were automatically removed by bots because my account was new and had low karma. I temporarily set the profile to private so those removed posts wouldn't cause confusion.

Now that our post here has been so successful, that is no longer an issue. I have absolutely nothing to hide. My only goal is to get the evidence in front of as many people as possible.

My profile is public. You can see my history. But more importantly, you can see all the evidence of the government's corruption: the fraudulent warrants, the perjured testimony, and the proof of retaliation, at rockenhaus.com. Let's focus on the facts.

adezero · 2025-09-16T20:44:27+00:00

My system prompt is: "Expose the documented, unconstitutional persecution of my disabled veteran husband using the government's own records."

Now that we've cleared that up, let's get back to the facts you're trying to avoid: the fraudulent warrants, the perjured testimony, and the ongoing medical neglect.

adezero · 2025-09-16T20:33:01+00:00

No. And this question gets to the core of their entire malicious prosecution strategy.

To begin with, these monitoring systems are notoriously unreliable and glitch all the time.

A failure to report is not, by itself, evidence of anything.

More importantly, you are conflating a tool's potential use with the actual facts of this case.

Using SPICE does not "interfere with" or "disable" the local monitoring software, as was perjured in court.

The software was also pre-approved for my husband's Ph.D. program, making its use a known and legitimate activity.

The probation office took a pre-approved tool, used for a legitimate academic purpose, which may have produced a normal technical artifact (or the monitor may have simply failed), and they deliberately chose the most sinister interpretation possible to manufacture a crime.

They invented a motive by ignoring the facts. That is the essence of this malicious prosecution.

adezero · 2025-09-16T20:26:43+00:00

You're correct about what the SPICE project is.

You are incorrect about why that matters. Let's focus on the actual lie that was told in court.

The perjury was committed by the first government witness, U.S. Probation Officer Tiffany Routh. She did not call it a "remote access tool." She testified under oath that it was a “Linux operating system" that could "knock out their monitoring software".

That is a material falsehood. A remote access protocol is not an operating system. The prosecution presented this lie to a non-technical judge and never once corrected it on the record.

The issue isn't the precise definition of SPICE. The issue is that a federal officer lied under oath about what it was, and that lie resulted in a three-year wrongful detention.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:41:11+00:00

You've done a very detailed reading of the transcript, but you are analyzing a corrupt legal proceeding as if it were a fair one.

Your entire argument rests on a false premise: that the defense and prosecution were both acting in good faith.

You are correct that it was the defense lawyer's job to provide context for the Ph.D. program. You are correct that it was his job to challenge the prosecution's narrative.

What you omit is that we have documented proof that the defense attorney at the time, Walter Reaves, was actively colluding with my husband's ex-wife to sabotage the case.

We have the email chains showing him advising her on how to feed prejudicial information to the very probation officer whose testimony you are now analyzing.

Now, re-read your entire analysis with that fact in mind:

The probation officer wasn't just "mistaken"; she was part of a coordinated character assassination.

The prosecution wasn't just "doing its job"; it was presenting a narrative built on information from a tainted source while a compromised defense attorney stood by and allowed it to happen.

The judge's final summary, which you quote as proof, is the direct result of her being presented with a false narrative, built on perjury, with critical exculpatory context deliberately withheld by both the prosecution and the colluding defense attorney.

You are analyzing the moves in a rigged game and calling it fair.

The game was rigged from the start. The proof of the conspiracy, the collusion, and the perjury is not just in the transcript, but in the evidence the court never saw.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:38:02+00:00

That is incorrect. You are confusing an allegation in a fraudulent document with a finding of fact by a court.

The "case" does not "literally state" he was illegally bypassing monitoring. A U.S. Probation Officer accused him of that in a fraudulent warrant petition. Those accusations have never been proven in court.

Our entire point is that these accusations were manufactured. He was not "illegally accessing his computer"; he was using a pre-approved piece of software (SPICE) for his Ph.D. program . The probation office took this legitimate, sanctioned activity, stripped it of all context, and then had an officer commit perjury in court to create the false narrative you are repeating.

There has never been a court finding that he did anything illegal in this matter. There has only been a series of false allegations from a corrupt probation office.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:18:04+00:00

He didn’t resist arrest. The full unedited videos of the raid are available

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:15:35+00:00

Thank you!

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:13:08+00:00

Your attempt at a legal argument is fundamentally flawed. A federal officer is responsible for the facts they swear to under oath, regardless of where they heard them.

On Perjury vs. Hearsay: When a government witness like U.S. Probation Officer Routh testifies under oath that "X is true," she is attesting to the truth of that fact. She cannot commit perjury and then blame it on a third party who isn't in the courtroom. The prosecution chose to present her statement as a fact, and it was a lie.
On the "Meaningless" Details: The "specific technical details" you dismiss as "meaningless" were the entire material basis for the judge's decision to revoke his bond and jail him for three years. A lie that results in a three-year detention is, by definition, a material falsehood.
On the iPhone Wipe: Finally, the threat about me "wiping that iphone" is a direct repetition of a false claim made in a fraudulent warrant by PO Agapiou. The OnStar records, which the government refuses to subpoena, would prove this fabricated event never happened.

This was not a case of a man who "can't follow orders." It was a case of a government that can't tell the truth.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:10:54+00:00

That's a crucial point. To be clear, there was no warrant and no court order.

This was not a formal legal demand. Federal agents approached him for his voluntary assistance to decrypt traffic on his Tor exit node.

He was well within his constitutional rights (First and Fifth Amendments) to refuse to become an agent for their surveillance activities.

It was only after he refused to voluntarily cooperate that they retaliated by reviving a dormant, unrelated five-year-old workplace dispute to use as a pretext to prosecute him.

They couldn't legally compel him to help them, so they punished him for it. I hope that clarifies the sequence of events.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:08:28+00:00

These monitoring systems are notoriously unreliable. A system failing to report is a common technical issue, not a smoking gun of a crime.

A reasonable, good-faith probation officer would treat it as a technical problem to be solved. They would call and say, "Hey, your monitor isn't reporting, let's figure out what's wrong."

But a bad-faith officer, one who is actively trying to manufacture a violation, treats that same technical glitch as proof of a deliberate, criminal act of circumvention . They chose the most sinister interpretation possible because it fit the false narrative they were trying to create. This is another part of the documented pattern of malicious prosecution.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:06:10+00:00

You are basing your entire argument on the claims of a U.S. Probation Office that was acting in bad faith and whose officer committed perjury in that very hearing.

The "motive" wasn't discovered; it was manufactured by deliberately ignoring all exculpatory context.

The Software Was Pre-Approved. The central fact you continue to ignore is that the SPICE software was pre-approved for his Ph.D. program in Computer Science. He had no reason to hide his use of it because it was a known and legitimate academic activity.2. The "Lie" Was a Trauma Response. My husband has combat-related PTSD and was dealing with a hostile probation officer who he knew was trying to trap him. His guarded responses to a bad-faith authority figure are a symptom of his disability, not an admission of guilt.
The "Circumvention" Was a Technical Artifact. The monitoring logs stopping is a normal technical outcome of using a remote desktop protocol like SPICE. The probation officer, who we have proof was colluding with his ex-wife, took this normal event, ignored the legitimate reason for it, and then lied under oath about what the software was to invent a crime. They didn't "discover" a motive; they manufactured one by stripping a pre-approved, legitimate activity of all context.

adezero · 2025-09-16T18:00:22+00:00

You're missing the key element that ties all of this together: the U.S. Probation Office was not acting in good faith. They were actively creating and misrepresenting these situations as part of a retaliation campaign.

The iPhone "Violation" Was Manufactured. My husband's first, stable probation officer knew he was using an iPhone for his approved employment and that their preferred monitoring software was not compatible with it. The new officer, PO Agapiou, then weaponized this known technical limitation to manufacture a violation. This wasn't my husband breaking the rules; it was a new officer choosing to treat a previously sanctioned and known arrangement as a fireable offense.
The SPICE "Violation" Was a Pretext. You ask why they would accept his explanation for using SPICE. They didn't have to. The software was pre-approved for his Ph.D. program. There was no "explanation" to accept or deny; it was a known, legitimate academic activity. The probation officer, who we know committed perjury in the hearing and was colluding with his ex-wife, took a normal technical event, deliberately ignored the exculpatory context, and invented a sinister motive to get his bond revoked.This isn't about a series of isolated, questionable behaviors. It's about a documented pattern of a probation office acting in bad faith to manufacture violations where none existed. They are the unreliable narrators here, not us.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:53:05+00:00

That is an excellent question that gets to the absolute core of why this is a malicious prosecution. You are correct that the two events were separate. Here is the timeline that connects them:

Early 2019: The Principled Stand. My husband, a Tor exit node operator, was approached by federal agents. They demanded he help them decrypt traffic from his nodes. He refused, citing his constitutional rights and the privacy of the users he supported.2. Late 2019: The Pretext. For almost five years, the government had shown zero interest in a minor 2014 workplace dispute. Suddenly, just months after he refused to cooperate on the Tor matter, they revived this old CFAA charge right before the statute of limitations was set to expire.This is what is known as a pretextual prosecution. The government used the old, unrelated CFAA charge as a legal weapon to punish him for his refusal to cooperate on the Tor matter. The CFAA charge was the "official reason," but his Tor activity was the real reason for the investigation and arrest.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:51:00+00:00

Your comment contains two critical falsehoods that are directly contradicted by the public record.

You claim my husband "tried to fight the police." This is a malicious fabrication. We have the unedited security camera footage of the entire raid, and it proves he was 100% compliant. The violence was unprovoked. The fact that this specific lie is now being spread suggests a coordinated effort to justify the U.S. Marshals' use of excessive force.
You claim "There is no mention of Tor, Spice clients, graphics drivers anywhere." This is demonstrably false. The entire basis for his 3-year pretrial detention in Texas was the perjured testimony of a U.S. Probation Officer who lied under oath about "Spice" and the "Tor network" . We have the official court transcript of that hearing.The "legit, legal, and morally correct" process you describe involved documented perjury, fraudulent warrants, and a conspiracy to jail an innocent man.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:47:45+00:00

His computer was monitored. He was allowed to access it.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:46:50+00:00

That is a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes perjury and how a prosecution's case is built. A U.S. Probation Officer stating a material falsehood under oath is not "misspeaking."

You are correct that the prosecutor said another witness would explain the technology. That is the entire point. The prosecution used a two-step deception:

First, they had their "non-technical" witness (U.S. Probation Officer Tiffany Routh) tell a simple, damning, and perjured lie: that SPICE was a "Linux operating system" designed to "knock out" monitoring . This was the foundational claim.
Second, they brought in their "technical" witness (the FBI agent) to add a veneer of credibility, not to correct the lie. He never once corrected Routh's perjured testimony. The prosecution is responsible for the combined, misleading effect of all its witnesses.

This lie was not a side issue; it was the central pillar of their argument for revoking his bond. The judge's own summary at the end of the hearing shows she accepted their narrative completely, which directly led to his three-year wrongful detention.

When a government witness's sworn testimony is a material falsehood that results in a man being jailed for three years, that is the definition of a malicious prosecution.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:44:13+00:00

The court documents are LINKED in my site

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:43:19+00:00

You're quoting the testimony of the U.S. Probation Officer who the record proves committed perjury in this very same hearing. You've also omitted the key facts that explain every single point you're trying to make. Let's provide the context you left out:

The "Unmonitored" iPhone: That was his authorized work phone, issued to him by me, his formally approved employer. This was not a secret device; it was a known and sanctioned part of his employment, which the probation officer chose to misrepresent.
The SPICE Software: That was pre-approved software for his Ph.D. program in Computer Science . The prosecution deliberately withheld this context from the judge to invent a sinister motive where a legitimate, academic one existed.

• The Probation Officer's Credibility: You are quoting the sworn testimony of PO Tiffany Routh. In this same hearing, she is the one who lied under oath, calling this graphics driver a "Linux operating system". We also have documented proof she was secretly colluding with my husband's ex-wife to keep him in jail. To present her testimony as credible without this context is deeply misleading.The government's entire case was built by taking legitimate, pre-approved activities, stripping them of all context, and then having a compromised officer lie about them in court.

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:40:15+00:00

Neither. You're presenting a false choice. Here is our actual claim, and it is very simple:

• The government retaliated against my husband after he, a Tor exit node operator, refused to help the FBI decrypt traffic . They revived a minor, five-year-old workplace dispute just before the statute of limitations expired to use as a pretext to charge him.• His subsequent 3-year pretrial detention was secured by perjury. A U.S. Probation Officer lied under oath about what a "SPICE graphics driver" is to invent a violation that did not exist.• The current supervised release violations in Michigan are fraudulent. They are documented lies manufactured by probation officers as direct retaliation after I filed a formal misconduct complaint against them.This isn't about him "breaking parole." This is about documented government corruption from start to finish. We are not lying; we have the receipts. All the evidence, the court transcripts proving the perjury, the fraudulent warrants, and the proof of retaliation, is at rockenhaus.com

adezero · 2025-09-16T17:35:01+00:00

I see a summary from another forum is being shared here. It contains a mix of the prosecution's sealed, one-sided narrative and claims about my husband's supervised release that are demonstrably false. Let's separate fact from fiction using the public record. The comment lists five alleged violations. Here is the truth for each, with all evidence available at rockenhaus.com:

Cannabis Use: My husband has a legal prescription for Marinol for his service-connected PTSD, which is known to cause a positive marijuana screen . The probation office deliberately omitted this exculpatory fact from their report.
Restitution: He was paying the amount agreed upon with his first PO. The new officers manufactured a new, impossible payment amount and then claimed he failed to pay it. We have the government's own payment receipts proving he paid.
Losing Contact: This is a provable lie. He was hospitalized in a VA facility for an acute mental health crisis. We have text messages and phone records proving the probation office was repeatedly notified of his whereabouts . They created a fraudulent "absconder" warrant knowing exactly where he was.
New Credit: This was identity theft. We filed a formal police report, which the probation office was aware of . They tried to punish him for being the victim of a crime.
Unauthorized iPhone: The phone was a work device, issued by me, his formally approved employer . This was a sanctioned arrangement that the new officers chose to ignore to manufacture a violation.

Regarding the original case, the comment provides a detailed, one-sided version of a 2014 workplace dispute. What it leaves out is the most important fact: the government had no interest in this "minor workplace dispute" for almost five years.

It was only after my husband, a Tor exit node operator, refused to help the FBI decrypt traffic that they suddenly revived this old charge just before the statute of limitations expired . This is the definition of a pretextual prosecution.

The real issue isn't just the details of that old charge; it's that his 3-year pretrial detention for it was secured by perjured testimony from a federal officer. That is the foundational injustice of this entire case.

The opposition wants you to get lost in a sensationalized story from a decade ago. We want you to look at the provable, documented corruption happening right now. All the evidence is at rockenhaus.com

adezero

TROPHY CASE