I can't help but feel that there is something one-sided & missing from this story. Two questions (one being discussed already): "pleaded guilty in December to

I can't help but feel that there is something one-sided & missing from this story. Two questions (one being discussed already): "pleaded guilty in December to wire fraud and obstruction of an agency proceeding" 1) I didn't see any mention of the wire fraud charges - can anyone clarify that part? (Over the phone or mail, but that would have to be fraud - in which case, they are saying his technique doesn't work. Which opens a different problem) 2) There are laws against aiding & abetting. If I teach you to crack a safe, it's freedom of speech. If you tell me, "teach me how to crack a safe because I'm planning to rob 1st National", I am absolutely an accomplice & will be charged The story tries to paint this as a man being prosecuted for teaching a technique, but I don't see that at all.