Thanks. It was 10% his fault and 90% my fault. I totally worded that incorrectly.

Scott is a journalist. He knows how to research and quickly pick things out. I AM NOT SAYING others dont. What I should have said was that those sentencing summaries have 1 section in them, I think it's the background, that present the wiretap info, crimes, etc. THe rest of the stuff is the DA trying to back up their sentencing recommendations with historical cases. I'm not a lawyer so I don't know the technical term.

Bottom line, I should have said that Scott took the important parts out and summarized them for all of us. Instead of going through every document, you can know read his article and get the good details from the sentencing documents. That's how he did us a favor.

I apologize for the context in which I originally made my statement. After I saw was LALOU wrote, I picked right up on how my post could be taken either way. I meant it one way but wrote it wrong.

Thanks.