.....
I understand. I would ask you to consider that I am not defending Pierce, Shrem, or Karpeles. I am trying to separate facts from accusations. I lobbied against Brock Peirce for his seat. But the election had him as the winner anyway. Should I disregard a fair vote because he was accused of something in the past? Should his drug use preclude him from serving? If so then why can George Bush do acid and coke and still be president? It's true that if Brock were convicted I would feel different. Not because he goes from being good to bad, but because the claim was seriously looked at and investigated by a court rather than a bitcoin forum.
Look at the case of Mark K. You would think from reading here that he stole the money at Gox. There is no evidence of that, but the people who lost money want to blame someone rather than face the idea that an anonymous thief took their money and it is gone forever. Maybe Mark did take the money, maybe not. We do not know. That's the fact, and all I'm saying.
Before making statements such as that bolded above, I would go back and read a fair number of the court transcripts and examine the timelines. I would not make them lightly, because that actually does put you in the position of defending Karpeles, Pierce, Shrem, etc.
Having read a number of the legal transcripts, I assure you that the "We do not know" statement is to a fair extent, false. I have the impression that you have not done so, but are well intentioned. This has implications.
For example, your claim that Brock's stuff was "seriously looked at and investigated by a court" has no merit. In reality, a large number of "convictions" are plea bargains by those who don't have the money for court. And a large number of dismissals are achieved by way of money passing hands or otherwise an agreement being reached between the defendant and the plaintiff.
And what none of the above truly handles well is the continuing fact that bad has swirled around the Bitcoin Foundation. You can't make the stink go away by trying over and over to put these characters in the "innocent until proven guilty" category.
RE George Bush. Rather than discredit my point, you make it. Pierce signed up and paid to run for director only a few days before voting closed. IIRC. This put the awareness, disclosure and fact-searching relative to his past post-election, rather than prior to the election. There was actually NOT a discussion on these issues prior to the election. Bush freely admitted pre election that he'd gone through some rough times.
