Closer then they will ever know.
Once your on a govt list, you become entertainment for said watchers. I mean look at the Sopranos, Agent Dwight Harris.
Yes it was a TV show and âFictionalâ but there was a lot drawn from fact.
Perhaps his ego can be pushed over the edge like recent prominent figures who canât seem to STFU despite lots of $$$$ being on the line. Need to bait him into the trap LOL.
No need to bait him. He will do it himself again, and again, and again.
His last melt down was not his first. It wonât be his last.
I am more of an Agent Nelson Van Alden fan from BWE. 
In the past, Ed was triggered simply by anyone trying to warn less experienced Sellers to stay away from him and ASGTG by telling the truth about his illegal actions, his criminal activity, and his reluctance to take active responsibility for his own choices.
Not saying that any of these criminals are certified narcissists, but one thing narcissists do is cast themselves as Victors or Victimsânever Villains.
Historically, any innocent or even mild challenge to Edâs narrative that he was a Victim who emerged a Victor has certainly brought out Villain behavior, including but not limited to threats, tirades, gaslighting, intimidation, bribery, and sabotage.
In all fairness, Rosenberg was merely stupid enough to commit âcommercial briberyâ in one of the very few states that have made it a crime. All he needed to do to avoid criminal prosecution for Count 1 was to avoid doing what he did in NY, NJ, TX, and CA.
Count 2, âConspiracy to Commit Wire Fraudâ is no stronger than the underlying âwire fraudâ counts (Counts 3-9). One cannot commit âwire fraudâ unless there is a victim, and here, the only victim with a specific claim that they were defrauded was Amazon itself, via the claim in Count 1.
So, if one is in NY, NJ, CA, or TX - âItâs a crimeâ. Anywhere else, its a âTerms of Service Violationâ, and there is no criminal charge possible, as even the âwire fraudâ does not stand up without some underlying fraud where something of specific value was taken. Amazon might have a civil suit against some of its employees for their mishandling of proprietary info, but Amazon would not even have a civil claim against Rosenberg, et al, as they merely provided the very nebulous âcommercial advantageâ to their âclientsâ, and Amazon made more fees as a result.
Could someone else do exactly what Ed did, and get away with it? Yes, but only ELSEWHERE.
But the real issue here is that Amazon used the DOJ as its own private police force to enforce its TOS, when they should have been forced to litigate the issue as a civil issue. Who will Amazon target next in this manner? What OTHER TOS violations can they inflate into a criminal charge?
Normally overseas.
I have a feeling this was triggered by Banks and the IRS seeing money move around over the $10k limit without taxes being involved. I honestly think Amazon could have cared less about the whole thing. Happens every day, still is happening to this day, Ed or not.
But no tax charges were even filed. If taxes were the issue, criminal tax evasion would have been charged. It was not. One can read the important documents in the case here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/18452388/united-states-v-rosenberg/
Your right, canât answer why, but considering how well Amazon and the govt get along, I just question the theory that Amazon was the driving force behind this.
I mean if it was, Ed would be banned, and he isnât. He was posting on the NSFE, and rumors had it he was even selling again.
Although kosher salt may have certifications to its lack of contamination, I believe the name comes from the practice of using the salt to remove any remaining blood from kosher meat.
At least one of the most common brands of âkosher saltâ was sold in the early 20th century with no certifications and a s*wastika on the packaging.
When we complain about a lack of a sense of history, we can usually include members of many religions in the complaint.
My comment on this post is not based on religious training so much as having sold many advertising collectibles.
BTW Amazon removed my listings for the collectibles related to the salt with the s*wastika. Ebay only bans the symbol if used after 1934.
But he used wire and mail fraud, which ups violations of state law to the federal level.
__
The victims were all of Edâs clientsâ competitors because Ed illegally bribed an Amazon employee for information that gave his client an unfair business advantage.
Merely looking at Edâs plea deal alone to evaluate his crimes is too narrow a scope to claim âmehâ. He took this deal and admitted guilt to these two counts because a jury trial would have included ALL of the crimes for which the DOJ had evidence to charge him.
Just because Al Capone was only convicted on tax evasion, by no means implies that was his only crime, nor that it was the only crime upon which he could have been convicted. It was merely the most efficient method to hold him to some accountability.
All of this ⊠
Wow, I did N.a.z.i. that one coming!
Yes, but there has to be a violation of an actual state law - I think the Wikipedia entry you quoted confused bribing a STATE official with âcommercial bribeâ, hence their much higher count.
Thatâs hogwash - Amazon gives one seller an âunfair advantageâ over another by numerous means - ignoring trademark and the DMCA for copyright and imposing their own âflag footballâ versions of the law, giving someone who buys ads a significant advtange over someone who does not, and so on. What ELSE is âbuying an adâ on Amazon to use my OWN FREAKINâ TRADEMARK as a keyword but âextortionâ and âbribesâ?
âŠbut donât get me started on a rant⊠
Then look at the indictment. That is the full âbook thrown at himâ buy the DOJ.
The indictment counts are easy to read, and they plainly state that what happened here was clearly a TOS violation, and plainly unethical acts by Rosenberg, his cronies, and multiple Amazon employees.
But this should have been a civil suit, as the criminal aspect is chilling - YOUR TOS violation might be the next âunfair trade practiceâ (which is a civil matter for for maybe the FTC worst case) that Amazon decides to âcriminalizeâ via an overreach into criminal conspiracy statutes.
A. I donât violate TOS.
B. I donât bribe anyone.
C. I donât commit fraudulent financial transactionsâŠ
D. âŠbut if I did, I wouldnât use fake accounts to try to hide them or send them in a suitcase via Uber becauseâŠ
E. âŠsee A.
I am surprised that any ethical business person could possibly try to rationalize that Ed did not commit âactual crimesâ. That just fuels the fires of bad actors.
And the Amazon-DOJ conspiracy theory is a tired deflection from actual wrongdoing. 
One might wonder why exactly any legitimate Seller attends ASGTG meetings and follows them.
As you know, âBooksâ may be thrown in the Public Record - but that doesnât mean that whatâs publicly-revealed necessarily reveals the the exact details, of any given case up for adjudication.
Thereâs a reason why plea bargains exist - and I would submit that the underpinnings of that Reality aâint all attributable to prosecutors merely seeking performance confirmation statistics.
WOW! I have actually found not one but three mistakes by Dog ⊠and all in the same post no less.
In my world, ya have to prove that youâre actually a human, not a bot, every now and then⊠
At least thatâs my story, and Iâm stickinâ to it. 