[William Terrell]

It appears that Hindelang’s "crimes" were all made-up "crimes", smuggling cannabis (Horror!). Take that away as a "crime", that is, injury to others, and most of this collapses.

[daviddennis]

I would actually agree with you about the decades-old drug dealing being unimportant in the present, and I think the Simon campaign may be incorrect to emphasize that so strongly. However, that doesn't negate the more important (to me, anyway) business questions which were the real focus of the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleged that he did not have control over the Simon venture capital strategy; in fact, he had veto power over it and did not use it. The lawsuit alleged that he was trapped into allowing a takeover he didn't want; in fact he had veto power over the takeover that he could have used, and he had previously attempted to take over the same company with a similar offer.

Those seem conclusive against the fraud question.

I probably would not have dismissed him for concealing the felony charges, simply because they were from so long ago, and he did do his time for them. Note, however, that he did in fact conceal them; he was given forms to sign, and they included the question "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" However, this is a decision that can go either way; for a stricter moralist, it would be unforgiveable to lie on such an important matter. More to the point, the potential forfeiture of the assets put the entire business in danger. As a result, Simon's company probably had little choice but to fire him.

D

[L.N. Smithee]

It appears that Hindelang’s "crimes" were all made-up "crimes", smuggling cannabis (Horror!). Take that away as a "crime", that is, injury to others, and most of this collapses.

Uh huh. Thanks for your made-up "logic."