And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
Pot, kettle...
Exactly! Thank you!
And you're still making assumptions based on your own preconcieved opinions of the guy. But you have your set opinion, so whatever.
The judgements of courts and the statements of prosecutors and judges aren't my own preconceived opinions. Your statements, on the other hand, are coming out of thin air. You had a friend who skipped out on his rathole apartment one time, so Bruce getting sued for half a million in back rent was probably a similar situation when you think about it!
It's like you're convinced that Bruce is a heavenly angel and you can't help but look at everything he does in the absolute best light. You're like Latarian Milton's grandma when it comes to Bruce. It's almost kinda creepy.
Friend didn't skip out, but wanted to. I've repeatedly said that Bruce is an untrustworthy and unscrupulous person. The dead horse I am apparently beating is the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because he was obviously at fault" is nothing but speculation, and in my opinion no better or worse than the statement that "Bruce didn't defend himself because the business was such a collosal failure that there was no point in wasting any more lawyer money." The only facts we have are that he didn't perform (nothing about whether he even tried), a claim that all of it was a scam, based on false advertising (we don't actually know his real intent for starting this), and that there is a lot of stuff that we don't know.
Also, half a million in back rent? Are you sure you're not mixing up more numbers? Assuming he stayed at the place for two years before running, that's $42,000 a month in rent... This is also kind of what I'm talking about: unchecked accusations end up mixing up and snowballing into wild ones.