Well, firstly, only Sterlingov has the claim that he was innocently running a neutral bit of software. He didn’t run around explcitly saying in their business materials that a potential market was listed terror organizations like Samourai did. So the level of professionalism is much higher, and he can legitimately say that he made a neutral privacy tool with no plan to profit from illegal money laundering.
Furthermore, because he actually intended to fight the case from the beginning, he attacked the circuit split on the government’s unconstitutional “infinite jurisdiction for the Internet” argument made by the federal government from the outset. Several other useful arguments were preserved by his highly competent counsel in the motions, which allow for a worthwhile appeal. Keonne and Bill literally made zero effort. Simple plea. They never showed that they intended to fight the case. They never hired any of the dozen significant people who do appeals work for computer crime starting from trial — attorneys that are willing to low bono cases out of passion for the statutes in question, certainly not requiring millions of dollars in funds to do so. They *so obviously* were just planning to take the money and run.
Sterlingov showed up to legitimately fight for us. Keonne and Bill showed up to grift shekels.
weev
npub1we…409xg
2026-05-07 08:28:18 UTC
in reply to nevent1q…rkpn
Author Public Key
npub1weev88wc43slz6jjlq2h30ltmd0ccu9utfe8wet2kkax0w6epavqw409xgPublished at
2026-05-07 08:28:18 UTCEvent JSON
{
"id": "f405435f5555bd5b65c193770a868910c6e9fc1ae7306285d0ab330c28f4f80b",
"pubkey": "7672c39dd8ac61f16a52f81578bfebdb5f8c70bc5a7277656ab5ba67bb590f58",
"created_at": 1778142498,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"495895a471b8c6f6741cd793ba72c28c18ff62cf92dc69bbf15dfc5e47b5d350",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"86864804ae576cee2923cc20bace35a7f9ba883e3f30c2c98d109c5035b6d294",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"1739d937dc8c0c7370aa27585938c119e25c41f6c441a5d34c6d38503e3136ef"
],
[
"p",
"b22cf0863e8e72d2ab802f3542618b4f52cc7d51d1387f3bd4e9e5a6442f0200"
],
[
"p",
"7672c39dd8ac61f16a52f81578bfebdb5f8c70bc5a7277656ab5ba67bb590f58"
]
],
"content": "Well, firstly, only Sterlingov has the claim that he was innocently running a neutral bit of software. He didn’t run around explcitly saying in their business materials that a potential market was listed terror organizations like Samourai did. So the level of professionalism is much higher, and he can legitimately say that he made a neutral privacy tool with no plan to profit from illegal money laundering. \n\nFurthermore, because he actually intended to fight the case from the beginning, he attacked the circuit split on the government’s unconstitutional “infinite jurisdiction for the Internet” argument made by the federal government from the outset. Several other useful arguments were preserved by his highly competent counsel in the motions, which allow for a worthwhile appeal. Keonne and Bill literally made zero effort. Simple plea. They never showed that they intended to fight the case. They never hired any of the dozen significant people who do appeals work for computer crime starting from trial — attorneys that are willing to low bono cases out of passion for the statutes in question, certainly not requiring millions of dollars in funds to do so. They *so obviously* were just planning to take the money and run. \n\nSterlingov showed up to legitimately fight for us. Keonne and Bill showed up to grift shekels. ",
"sig": "660643cc26ba86f047b7223b9ad98dc5ee7166c5700498780ccdf40cfcbfba7a35381938de8ed14376cf106badd7c02579a30e9de6482663dc550f59a6fe8e62"
}