This is kind of the point really isn't it. There was no forgery or abuse here, the certificate was issued in full accordance to the rules set out in the CA/Brow

This is kind of the point really isn't it. There was no forgery or abuse here, the certificate was issued in full accordance to the rules set out in the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements and the EV SSL Guidelines. If there were any abuse or forgery taking place here the certificate would have been revoked for those reasons and the CA would be held to account for mis-issuing a certificate. That's not what happened. Given the name of the account that made the comment I'm curious about the affiliation of the author, perhaps they would share that in the interest of transparency?