The Court of Appeal says today:
"On the court’s own motion, the opinion filed in the above-entitled
matter on December 19, 2016, shall be modified in the following manners:
On page 20, in the first full paragraph, the third sentence is deleted
and replaced with the following sentence:
Plaintiffs also compare Drobot’s admission that he bribed Senator
Calderon in various ways that did not involve prostitutes with the suggestion
that Drobot was involved in supplying prostitutes as bribes or kickbacks."
That edit reflects one of the central problems with the modern legislative world. It's just so hard to keep straight the precise relationship between the bribes and the provision of prostitutes.
