Yep, and he hurt others.
Big time.
But he thinks that by helping others the crimes donât matter. He thinks that to this day by what he is posting.
But not all. He would also not be able to charge what he did by committing those crimes.
Yep, but he made a choice. He did commit the crimes.
He is hyper focused on discrediting SOME of the indictment to try and distract from one word:
GUILTY
Yes⊠I know. I was pointing out that some people believe he is a martyr for the little guy because they didnât read his indictment or his guilty plea and donât understand that the crimes are separate from the helping; that the crimes were not the help.
Yeah ⊠I need to write something up to post for him, and everyone else reading, as a reminder. Didnât @papy post something?
Letâs make a big leap, and assume everything Ed says is true:
On the indictment, I escalated one such account (one of over 1200) and money was thrown into my account to frame me after It was reinstated and connect me to the others.
Letâs think about that - how does anyone âthrow money into my accountâ? They have to know the account number and routing number for a wire xfer, they need some sort of unique ID string for paypal, zelle, cashapp, et al. And each and every possible method tracks the SOURCE of the money. Even if I walk into your bank branch with cash, the bank will say âsorry, we cannot accept a cash deposit from you into someone elseâs accountâ.
So, the Feds certainly knew the source of the money paid to Ed, and his claim is utter BS on its face to anyone who has ever tried to quickly make payment get stuff done, rather than waiting for wire xfers or check-clearing times.
Money doesnât get thrown into peopleâs accounts.
Wonder if he paid taxes on this income 
times sure have changed⊠I remember the day where I did EXACTLY that. I wanted to pay $100 to someone for something that they did for meâŠand they refused the cash. So I went to the bank where I know they bank and said âIâd like to deposit $100 into the account that belongs to ABC.â She said fine and never handed me anything that had his account number on it.
Moved here in 1996 â so about 2001? Before 9/11âŠ
Looks like Ed is trying to re-write the narrative over on the NSFE by spamming.
On 2 year old posts, no less.
So Ed is spamming my OSFE thread (now on NSFE) with 20+ replies over the last 3 days and doing the same on reddit to my comments on multiple threads, too. I finally posted this response this morning, and although he couldnât let it go without a retort, it might have slowed him down: https://www.reddit.com/r/AmazonFBAOnlineRetail/comments/o7w6es/amazon_employee_reports_veiled_threat_from/jy6w2c7.
Was it this?
Yâall, basically Ed Rosenberg is trying to change his SEO results, hide his GUILTY PLEA to BRIBERY, and cover up his intentional wrongdoing, that hurt ALL AMAZON SELLERS. As much as he is blustering and bragging all over the internet, I suspect that he is facing some real consequences that are driving his obvious current panic to rewrite history.
In his own words:
âOn some occasions, I paid bribes, directly and indirectly, to Amazon employees to obtain annotations and reinstate suspended accounts. These actions were against the law.â
Too true, some will. And I hope that social Darwinism will sort out this willful ignorance and failure to seek truth.
Too true, some will: Edâs fellow self-interested sociopathic clout-chasers with victim mentalities and criminal minds, that he pals around with and name drops. I wonât name names beyond a reminder about his co-conspirators, but there are several other similarly unethical Amazon account specialists in ASGTG, the NSFE, and other Facebook, Telegram, and Instagram groupsâŠbut NOT here on SellersAskSellers.
Ed is a martyr for Ed. The adoration of his bewitched fans fuels his drive to appear like a savior, when he is in reality just a grifter who made promises he couldnât keep without committing crimes and cheating.
He is a fraud whose biggest fear is being known to be a faker and poser. It is sad, and we should indeed recognize that hurting piece of humanity within him that drives his extreme cowardice. But that in no way means that we forego holding him accountable or stop warning others to stay far away, for their own safety.
He shouldnât be known as a faker or a poser. He should be known as a criminal. Because of the crimes. The ones he admitted to in a court of law, which not enough people know about. He should have to submit his plea deal as part of any contract he enters into for the next 30 years.
While the facts speak for themselves, letâs remember that many of us, if given the opportunity would have paid a bribe to fix a serious problem at Amazon. The level of dysfunction at Amazon created an immoral environment, one that allowed parasites like Ed Rosenberg to profit from the chaos and strum und drang.
Would anyone have complained if the inside information was offered freely, rather than paid-for? Would anyone have complained if the tactics were only used to help âgoodâ ethical sellers caught in Catch-22 scenarios?
As a comparison, most all of us have seen the movie âTrading Placesâ. In that movie, the two guinea pigs in the ânature vs nurtureâ experiment run by the immoral Duke Brothers come up with a scheme to steal the orange crop report, and exploit that inside knowledge to manipulate futures trading in Frozen Concentrate Orange Juice, selling short just before the actual legit crop report was released, confirming a good harvest.
THIS WAS ALL PERFECTLY LEGAL AT THE TIME
There was no law against using inside information, or against federal employees selling information ahead of an official announcement. There ARE laws now, but what Eddie Murphy and Dan Ackroyd did violated no laws despite being highly unethical.
Not I, and not âmany of usâ. If thatâs your vibe then do you, but donât lump all the rest of us in with you. And accept the consequences if youâre caught.
ETA: @packetfire also remember that Ed threatened meâdirectly, personally, specifically. He and his tactics have hurt many SAS Sellers.
I donât know if this is true but I hope it isnât. I certainly would prefer being left out of this particular generalization.
He didnât profit from the chaos, he profited from the crimes he committed. I donât agree that someone doing crime to get ahead is the fault of anyone but the criminal.
No, but then it would have been available to everyone and not just criminals. And, crucially, it would not have been a crime.
Yes. Regardless of who he was helping, he committed crimes to do it. Bribery and corruption are illegal for a reason. In any even, he was not helping only ethical sellers. He helped anyone who paid him, regardless of how guilty they may have been.
Havenât seen it, canât comment.
You seem to be arguing that what Ed did is illegal, but not immoral and therefore not that bad. I donât agree at all.
First off, You pointed out that in your own example this legal action was itself immoral, and then became legal. Sometimes it can take time for laws to catch up to ethics. That doesnât mean that something was OK and became not OK. It was always not OK. It just became illegal. I canât speak for anyone else, but ânot criminally liableâ isnât the benchmark I try to live my life by.
By that same token, what Ed did was not âillegal, but not immoral.â Bribery is illegal because it is corrupt and immoral. Even if he wasnât hurting anyone else through his actions (and he was) he still engaged in corrupt behavior. And it was also illegal.
Second, your post focuses on the bribes he paid. Either you are ignoring or are unaware of the fact that other crimes were committed as well, including threats of violence and retaliation. I defy you to make a coherent argument that this is acceptable in any circumstances, regardless of how broken Amazon may be.
Third, beyond the crimes specifically laid out in his plea deal, at least some of the assistance he provided, whether that client was deserving or not, came at the cost of damaging other sellers. Some of his âhelpâ to one seller meant damaging or attacking the business of another. And to be clear, Ed helped whomever paid him for his services. He did not investigate a conflict and then offer his services to the most deserving party. Nothing I have seen or heard indicates that he had any qualms about helping a deceitful, unscrupulous, immoral, awful seller attack the competition trying to run a legitimate honest business, as long as they paid.
Please donât presume to âinterpretâ what I said, as the paraphrasing is poor, and it skips over significant nuance.
My only point was that parasites like Rosenberg are inevitable when large amounts of money, time, and effort are subject to capricious and arbitrary systems like the one Amazon created.
As far as I know Rosenberg was NOT convicted of any of the âthreateningâ actions, so while he clearly acted like a jerk, the crimes involving money are the crimes he has been proven guilty. âThreats of violenceâ would be laughable from him - Iâve met the fellow, and I doubt he would pose any physical danger to anyone - he looks like he got bullied often back in school.
Iâll not respond to the rest, except to say "I said what I said, not what you said ABOUT what I said. Re-read what I said, and thatâs what I meant. Not all the things you chose to twist my words into.
I realize that you may be playing a bit of the Devilâs Advocate here - I have not forgotten your scathing expose of this yearsâ ASGTG Convention in your upthread 26Jun23 Post #117 - but I stand with Papy & General Harper on this particular account:
Millions for defense, but not once cent for tribute.
Agreed.
NSFE TOPIC LINK: [UPDATE] DOJ bribery case against Amazon âconsultantsâ
THIS IS ED/ASGTG: Seller_6mFrsnzzU1buE
Seriously, go count 
Thanks to @oneida_books and @Pepper_Thine_Angus for the heads ups
His sentencing documents stated that the DOJ had enough evidence for other crimes but that the plea deal negotiated reducing charges and not adding others.
Ed was afraid to go to a jury trial with the amount of evidence DOJ had. He pled out. He took a deal.
This is not a situation of âunfounded allegationsâ or acquittals.
Anyone can read them for themselves. The evidence is there, and itâs damning.
https://test.sellersasksellers.com/t/rosenberg-bribery-case-updates/327/159?u=papy
Iâm counting - have been since âframEDâ first began spamming your long-monitored OSFE thread late on 23Aug23.
ETA (I missed the Edit Window, so deleted the earlier post):
I did not in any large fashion agree with the position taken by so many of the seasoned and savvy forum veterans of your caliber, when it became known by the Slip Of Tongue that we would outed by the NSFE, that ALL of oneâs contributions should be eradicated - but the evilly-indefatigable Ephraimâs spamming of that thread starkly illustrates yet another example of why you were right, and I was wrongâŠ
So, exactly as I said, he was not convicted of those âother crimesâ.
Iâm not exactly playing Devilâs Advocate, as Ed is not the Devil here - Amazon clearly is.
Ed is, at best, an imp in the grand scheme of things. Iâm saying that any large enough ecosystem has parasites and bottom-feeders, and when one dies, others step in to fill the niche.
Iâm a good tipper, so the local pizza joint knows how to make a pizza like my wife wants - thin crust, and very well-done, and does so with care. Is that âbribing employeesâ? Does knowledge that I tip well maybe move my order through the kitchen more quickly? Could be.
Not saying that the law is incorrect here, but Iâm not sure why I was expected to tip/bribe the maitre d at Chez Vendome (sadly long gone), but its illegal to bribe the seller support folks at Amazon.
@packetfire as evil as Amazon might be, all of us have choices to make. Edâs choices prior to his indictment were illegal, unethical, immoral, and self-serving. Edâs choices after his indictment were illegal, unethical, immoral, and self-serving.
None of Edâs choices are excused because someone else (Amazon, other consultants, his fellow conspirators, various other people in the world, etc) is also awful.
And come onâŠtipping versus bribery (or buying fake invoices, or extortion, or threats, or gumming up competitorâs accounts, or buying reinstatements) is a false equivalency. Arenât you a scientist?
Again, you do you, but donât try to normalize to the rest of us what is objectively wrong behavior.