> Oh, and how about his anti-Bitcoin efforts?
What anti-Bitcoin efforts? I'm aware of two things he was involved in that were tangentially related to Bitcoin, and one that is more directly related to Bitcoin.
1. The Silk Road case. This is only tangentially related to Bitcoin. The Silk Road defendants are in trouble for their alleged dealing in illegal substances and alleged involvement in murder-for-hire schemes. They would be in the same amount of legal trouble if they had been using any foreign currency for their transactions instead of Bitcoin.
2. The Charlie Shrem case. Also only tangentially related to Bitcoin. He is in trouble for allegedly purposefully participating in money laundering. He would be in the same trouble if he had been money laundering by exchange US dollars for Euros, instead of for Bitcoins.
3. The subpoena of Mt. Gox. We don't know what action the prosecutors are considering, if any, since this is just a subpoena (basically, it means they want more information to figure out what, if anything, Mt. Gox might have done wrong). If Mt. Gox is eventually charged, it will almost certainly be for something like fraud or theft, although since the fraud or theft involved Bitcoins themselves, one could make a somewhat passable argument that at least this case is more than tangentially related to Bitcoin.
It's pretty hard to make a rational argument that any of these are anti-Bitcoin, unless you think that the point of Bitcoin is to be able to money launder, commit fraud, and steal Bitcoin from other Bitcoin users who trust you to hold their coins for them.