@jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game.

@jacquesm, Or for a counterpoint: maybe it all comes down to an intentional strategy of timing? And our debate of morality vs. objectivity is late to the game. As in, people of authority are already aware of his actions (versus my original depiction of them as "sleeping giants"), but don't have enough strength (quality evidence, clear-cut violations, etc) to convict so the case proceeds at a glacial pace. i.e. If they were to present the case at that point in time, they'd encounter too many people in the objective camp (me) vs. the moral camp (you), who'd issue a jury verdict of not guilty. But with the very negative, public antics that Martin undertakes, he changes public opinion which directly impacts the makeup of his jurors and additional evidence where if the case was presented at the current time, it'd come out with a guilty verdict. EDIT: left out "and additional evidence" in reply.