I see you want to play legalese semantic games such as
Bill Clinton's famous definition of what 'is' is. Okay.
I warned you guys you will lose in a debate with me. My father is an very prolific attorney. I inherited the skill of debate. I don't typically start a debate (especially so forcefully as I have done here) unless I am sure I can win it.
1. Your debate starts and ends at the point where you consider Evan's actions immoral. You are entitled to think that and nobody can tell you anything about it.
Please define the difference between a scam and unethical (and probably illegal in the USA and perhaps the EU at least) deception of investors?
2. Your debate is lost when you are saying things that are non-factual, like Evan ripping people off, and then citing "high quality" witnesses with "high quality" arguments, like those which have been presented so far.
Please define "ripping people off" unambiguously such that all those on the OP's list FACTUALLY qualify but Evan doesn't.
I warned you, and you are determined to make an asshat of yourself. I will await your definitions so I can skewer you to the wall for wasting my precious time.
(readers thanks to 5 organic eggs, bowl of broccoli, and copious amounts of freshly caught tuna tinola soup, my vision is back to normal ... very odd digestive system I have now ... my gf didn't prepare my normal food regimen yesterday)