My summary: 1. Amazon told DOJ that there was a breach of contract. 2. DOJ did not verify and confiscated everything. 3. Turns out, there was no breach of co

My summary: 1. Amazon told DOJ that there was a breach of contract. 2. DOJ did not verify and confiscated everything. 3. Turns out, there was no breach of contract. 4. DOJ did not NOT punish Amazon for providing the wrong information which triggered all this. And I think the author makes two very valid points: The DOJ should have been forced to actually read the contract in question and verify that there was a criminal breach BEFORE destroying someone's live. And the DOJ should have punished Amazon or its lawyers for misrepresenting what the contract contained. That said, what her husband did (buying land based on insider information) was certainly unethical. It just wasn't illegal.