By now, isn't it just semantics? The point is the pattern. Everyone he gets involved with, ends up suing him. He's defaulted on numerous cases, I would say that means he has no defense of those actions. In every case, including the FRAUD cases, it says defendants are negotiating a settlement. That's partial admission for level headed people.
Incorrect again. Those are civil court cases and, as I had already posted months prior, there is a judgement for fraud in the Glazer case. Why would anyone allow a default judgement for Fraud to occur? It goes on one's record. The cases involving breach of contract or money owed is one thing but fraud is a very nasty term to have attached to one's self.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
