The parable of the store owner

Once there was a gang of children tormenting the owner of a convenience store. The gang leader ridiculed the owner for years while his gang allegedly lifted candybars; tales of their accomplishments abounded on every street corner and playground, and children widely regarded the gang and it's leader among the "greatest of all time".  Naturally everyone assumed the leader must have also taken some candy too, and says so, but he claims he never ever did.  There was no security system to prove the leader took anything, the only proof ever offered are the boasts to one another among a gang of children.  That, and over time, many other members of the gang are actually caught red-handed lying and stealing candy at stores around the area.

So, many years later, the former gang leader has grown up - he's rich, successful, and a benevolent supporter of many laudable causes.  Members of the gang have scattered - some never amounted to anything, but many went on to become successful in their own rights, a few even own their own stores now.  No one in the gang has lifted anything for quite awhile.

But that old store owner has not forgotten the old days.  He looks at the success of the former gang leader, and the nice stores owned by a few former gang members, and thinks everyday, "That guy made fun of me, they stole from me!" and won't let it lie.  So after years of chasing windmills, he finally "convinces" some of the down-and-out former gang members to say, on record, that they KNOW the leader took some candy too back-in-the-day.  Many law enforcement agencies look at the case and decide pursuit of the old gang is not worth their time, but finally a regulatory agency in charge limiting widespread shoplifting takes up the case, and it's decided that a small (and possibly biased) jury will arbitrarily decide, based solely on hearsay and innuendo from these former gang members, if any candy was ever taken by the gang leader.  The panel has no substantial legal or enforcement power, but their ruling might at least highly embarrass the former gang leader.

The store owner spends a LOT of money convincing the public to listen to known thieves and liars to begin with, and unearths boxes of evidence; some that may be summed up simply as circumstantial, and some quite serious.  Nevertheless, in the end, the amount of money spent by the owner could have bought multiple security systems for his and others stores, and effectively prevented any further shoplifting.  Instead, the owner used the money to endlessly pursue the defamation of the gang leader.

Finally, the jury releases their decision - they found that the gang leader had indeed taken some candy bars.  He was fined the value of a handful of candybars and told he could never publicly claim to be the "greatest of all time" again.  No matter the ruling, the leader continued to claim his innocence since there was no legally binding concrete proof of any wrongdoing.  His wealth and fame declined a little, but he maintained his public good deeds as before and continued to enjoy much public support.  The ruling meant little, as many of the public privately felt all along he must have taken some candybars along the way, so at this point the public essentially let it go, and most continued to believe he was among the greatest of all time.  He obviously had not always taken candy, and he must not have taken very much, or he would have been caught like his accusers.  After all, he was the leader!  Everyone was watching him like a hawk the moment he entered any store...it just was not possible that he could have snatched much candy, no matter what those other guys were saying.  They must just be jealous.

Many new gangs have come and gone, and the store owner, on the other hand, lost candybars furiously for decades, and continues to do so.  Still, he smiles and foolishly claims victory and believes that by disparaging one alleged shoplifter from 20 years past, no one is currently shoplifting.