[ikeboy]

I'll defend whoever I like when someone makes incorrect claims.

Although here I'm mainly trying to clarify the law. People taking OP at face value will come away with a very incorrect impression of what's legal and not.

Also, OP didn't "put together a model" exposing hidden relationships. Every company they named was already in the indictment from last May.

[saber6]

You're arguing semantics. Don't defend fraud artists.

[ikeboy]

No, I'm not. OP is substantively wrong on their claims, not just semantically. The difference between illegal and legal is not semantic.

You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Also, I'm not defending the fraud, but the (legality) of the parts of this that aren't fraudulent. I understand that you believe it's ok to smear anyone as long as they've done something else you dislike. I disagree.

[saber6]

> You're the one defending someone who's wrong.

Ok chief. I'll wait to see the outcome of the legal case. That has 10000x more weight than a random internet commenter that appears to be continually injecting FUD.

Also, just incase you missed my prior comment: Don't defend fraud artists.

[ikeboy]

If and when they get sued and found guilty of spamming or improper handling of subpoenas, I'll gladly admit I was wrong.

Just in case you missed all my previous comments: lying is bad regardless of the target.