So you quoted a single sentence from the first paragraph of my post, and reply:
However the 3rd paragraph of my very same post says:
So no, I disagree with your assertion that I think it is all good, or your later assertion that:
That isn’t my metric.
My metric is someone can be guilty of some crimes and not others.
Someone I have told not to every come into my property who does come into my property and kicks all my plants and yells and screams but does not key my car has not keyed my car. They also haven’t assaulted me, they haven’t killed any of my pets.
The statement “they didn’t kill your dog” is true. They still committed one or more crimes and still have accrued some civil damage.
So crazy Eddie is guilty of tax fraud and defrauding investors, and likely all the other things you said. That doesn’t mean they defrauded customers. Which isn’t a defense of any charge (except the one of ripping off customers). It doesn’t mean he should still be in business.
I’m not really sure how I could have been clearer about that.
I find crazy Eddie’s non-customer fraud interesting because I am convinced that is part of how he could do that for so long. I don’t find it any more of a defense then a car thief having been caught saying “well I didn’t set the car on fire did I?”.
I also find crazy Eddie interesting because it is a thing in encountered in life, not just read about (although I was young enough that I didn’t buy anything, that would have been my parents)
