I work with data, logic, and evidence to help build sovereign, human-centered systems for people who are choosing to live and operate differently. I no longer believe authority is something to be appealed to. Many individuals and small business owners are realizing they are no longer aligned with how modern institutions, especially governments, use data, finance, and 'compliance.' Rather than continuing to participate in systems they do not believe in, they are choosing to opt into a parallel way of operating: one grounded in reason, consent, and shared humanity.

That shift raises an unavoidable question: if people are stepping outside legacy structures, what practical systems replace them? What does responsible sovereignty actually look like when translated into infrastructure, security, and daily operations?

Choosing to operate in a parallel way does not mean resisting or reacting to existing institutions. It means deliberately designing systems that function independently, on their own terms, with clarity of intent, ownership, and accountability built in from the start. Modern tooling makes it possible to build infrastructures that meet or exceed formal compliance, security, and operational standards without inheriting the fragility, opacity, or incentive distortions of legacy institutions. In practice, many centralized systems struggle to uphold even their own published requirements. Parallel systems offer an opportunity to demonstrate what disciplined, transparent, and self-governing infrastructure actually looks like when implemented intentionally.

A key part of that opportunity is building crypto-native infrastructure; systems designed from the ground up to live on cryptographic networks and to leverage cryptographic proofs, verifiable audit trails, and on-chain/off-chain composition where appropriate. Crypto-native design lets us bake sovereignty, verifiability, and user-controlled ownership into the architecture rather than bolting them on afterward.

This approach is not about isolation. It is about creating environments where individuals and small organizations can operate with dignity, agency, and coherence — grounded in evidence, consent, and responsible autonomy rather than dependency or blind trust. That is what I mean by “what comes next.”

That is what I mean by “what comes next.” And for clarity I've listed them as bullet points:

• Sovereign infrastructures owned and governed by the people and businesses that rely on them
• Data practices designed to protect individuals and small organizations from opaque extraction, misuse, and asymmetrical control by large institutions and platforms
• Systems built on informed consent, auditability, and ownership, where monitoring, detection, and evidence collection serve the system owner rather than external actors
• Security architectures that operate proactively: documenting activity, establishing behavioral baselines, detecting anomalous or unauthorized access, and responding intelligently rather than reactively
• Transparency-driven security models that favor visibility, evidence, and accountability over obscurity, dependency, or outsourced trust, including cryptographic proofs and verifiable records where appropriate
• Crypto-native infrastructures built to operate natively on cryptographic networks (distributed ledgers, verifiable logs, and programmable attestations) so sovereignty and auditability are architectural properties, not afterthoughts
• Financial and decision systems oriented toward long-term human stability rather than short-term institutional incentives
• Operating independently from institutions whose values, incentives, and power structures no longer align with human-centered outcomes

For many people and small businesses, this is not theoretical. Data is routinely collected without meaningful transparency, leveraged for political or commercial advantage, and then converted into tools and products that are sold back to the same populations who unknowingly supplied the raw material. The asymmetry is structural and largely invisible to those living inside it. This work represents a deliberate pivot toward parallel systems that restore agency, sovereignty, and informed participation. Not as rebellion, but as responsible self-governance.

This is the purpose behind Safe Passage Strategies, LLC: helping individuals and small businesses build resilient, sovereign operating models so they can create, transact, and innovate without dependence on systems they no longer trust or consent to. This is not about opposition for its own sake. It is about building a parallel reality quietly, responsibly, and intentionally.

My perspective comes from over 17 years working with state and federal systems, including internal data, compliance, and financial infrastructures. I’ve seen how these systems drift over time—away from human judgment and toward rigid control models that serve institutions first. Once you understand how they are built, it becomes clear why many people are choosing to step outside them.

Since 2023, I have been in an open and ongoing conflict with the United States government following whistleblowing. While that experience did not initiate my spiritual path, it profoundly refined it. Following that disclosure, I resigned from my position. Approximately three weeks after my resignation and after the whistleblower complaint had been filed, I was accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of causing a data breach; an allegation that was publicly reported despite the absence of technical evidence supporting such a claim. In response, I returned to graduate study in computer science, with coursework overlapping cybersecurity, in order to fully understand breach mechanics, evidentiary standards, and system accountability.

The political context surrounding the disclosure was unavoidable. The CFPB was architected by Elizabeth Warren alongside her law students from Harvard prior to the 2008 financial crisis. Those same individuals later became one layer of the institution’s internal defense mechanism, insulating it from anyone who thought differently. Many of them earned approximately $250,000 annually while simultaneously holding consulting positions related to consumer financial protection laws.

In several instances, the CFPB contracted directly with those consulting firms even though the firm owners were themselves active CFPB employees. This created a direct financial and professional conflict of interest, effectively allowing internal personnel to profit from contracts issued by the very agency in which they held decision-making authority.

After creating the CFPB, Elizabeth Warren went on to become a United States Senator representing Massachusetts, the state in which I reside and where the whistleblowing occurred. That proximity significantly amplified institutional sensitivity, visibility, and consequence.

During the whistleblower investigation, my apartment was raided and personal property was seized. While the case remained open, a group of individuals, including people outside the United States who were independently observing the situation, made me aware of a public Request for Information issued on behalf of the CFPB seeking external vendors to establish and operate core cybersecurity capabilities, including program management, monitoring, incident response, and remediation. In parallel, additional information was shared with me that enabled the preparation of a detailed affidavit submitted to the Office of Inspector General documenting systemic deficiencies and governance failures within the agency.

The existence of that RFI demonstrated not only that foundational cybersecurity infrastructure was still being developed rather than operationally mature at the time the allegations were made, but that this finding directly aligned with the substance of my whistleblowing complaint. The RFI itself constituted objective evidence that the agency did not yet possess even baseline mechanisms to prevent, detect, or govern a data breach.

Against that backdrop, the decision to accuse me of a data breach; made approximately three weeks after my resignation and following the submission of my whistleblower complaint, exposed the allegation as retaliatory in nature and rooted in institutional incompetence. The agency knowingly advanced a claim it lacked the technical capacity to substantiate, monitor, or even meaningfully evaluate. The accusers necessarily presumed the existence of cybersecurity controls and governance mechanisms that demonstrably did not exist.

My whistleblowing extended beyond technical security deficiencies into systemic failures in data governance, the misuse of consumer data for political maneuvering, and the weaponization of company information and trade secrets against organizations that did not align with the Democratic Party; precisely the operational conditions the RFI inadvertently confirmed.

Moreover, during my time at the CFPB, I accessed significant internal information relevant to both complainants from financial institutions under CFPB scrutiny and the broader community the agency serves. I observed a noticeable trend of disproportionate scrutiny applied by the CFPB towards institutions associated with conservative or Republican ideologies, which raised and continues to raise concerns among the financial industry given the bureau’s establishment by figures like Elizabeth Warren and Richard Cordray, known as crafty corruptionists, who permit the common people to be exploited by politicians like them who operate within Congress.

It was not until a subsequent change in administration that the matter was formally closed by Elon Musk. The irony is structural rather than causal: the same individual who later conducted a high-profile intervention at the CFPB in February 2025, temporarily disrupting its operations and accelerating its defunding and reorganization, was also the individual who formally closed the case that had emerged from the CFPB’s retaliatory actions against me. In effect, the institution that pursued allegations, authorized a raid, and sustained years of administrative persecution was itself subjected to a comparable disruption.

Although the formal closeout date reflected on the letter was January 20, 2025, I was notified on May 4, 2025, a date culturally recognized within the technology community. Given the scale of activity surrounding the administrative transition, the timing reads less as bureaucratic delay and more as intentional signaling. The notification carried a symbolic, almost playful resonance: a quiet acknowledgment that resolution arrives when the moment is right, a reminder that, sometimes, good things come to those who wait.

Navigating this full sequence of events; operational, political, and reputational, fundamentally reshaped how I think about power, technical dependency, and evidence-based governance, reinforcing my commitment to building sovereign systems that prioritize transparency, accountability, and individual agency.

Through sustained pressure, institutional resistance, and prolonged exposure to bureaucratic incoherence, I was forced inward—toward deeper self-inquiry, psychological maturation, and spiritual grounding. In that process, I began studying Eastern philosophical traditions, including the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, and related contemplative frameworks, which helped me articulate something I had long sensed but never fully named: order does not come from institutions; it arises from within.

This journey clarified that my truth is relative, my path is my own, and my responsibility is internal before it is external. I do not seek to impose this understanding on anyone else. Every individual has their own path—whether they choose to recognize it or delegate their will elsewhere.

My work, my dissent, and my systems thinking are inseparable from this inward development. As I grow spiritually and psychologically, I become more precise, more accountable, and more grounded. That clarity alone can be threatening to systems that depend on dependency, obedience, or the absence of self-authorship.

I am not interested in coercion, conformity, or moral hierarchy.
I am interested in self-governance, inward order, and parallel participation—in life, in work, and in how systems are built.

• M.S. Computer Science (Data Analytics & AI)
• B.A. Pre-Law

Founder, Safe Passage Strategies, LLC

If you’re aligned with building a parallel operational way of living and stepping beyond legacy systems that no longer serve your highest expression and want to help develop crypto-native infrastructure anchored in the Handshake decentralized root naming system — feel free to contact me at: [email protected]

If your loyalty is not to Humanity, please do not waste your time or mine. Those who serve Humanity live beyond the senses; intention is always revealed. Humanity recognizes Humanity. If you lack true understanding of Humanity, or present yourself as aligned while harboring a different intent, know that the secrets of the heart are never concealed. Nothing remains hidden from those who act with pure intention.