<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The HP Saga: Lockyer Lowers the Boom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/</link>
	<description>any technology distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:33:03 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: robhyndman.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The HP Saga: Focus on Ann Baskins</title>
		<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/comment-page-1/#comment-18167</link>
		<dc:creator>robhyndman.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; The HP Saga: Focus on Ann Baskins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Oct 2006 20:55:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/#comment-18167</guid>
		<description>[...] The WSJ Law Blog asks the question I asked in my last post on HP: Bill Lockyer has indicted Patricia Dunn and Kevin Hunsaker - why not Ann Baskins?:  We posed the why-not-Baskins question to three law professors, who offered their opinions with the obvious caveat that they do not know all the facts that Lockyer relied upon in deciding who to charge: Robert Weisberg, Criminal Law Professor, Stanford University: He says Lockyer might have excused Baskins, because he believes she might be a â€œsource of evidence against others. That would not be the first time that someone who looked as guilty as others got off because they are the most useful as cooperators.â€ Weisberg believes Baskins will not be charged at a later date. â€œFrom the flavor of Lockyerâ€™s statements, it didnâ€™t sound like this is the start. It looked like he had put together a package and [Baskins] wasnâ€™t in the package.â€ Deborah DeMott, Corporate Law professor, Duke University School of Law: â€œIt seems puzzling to me. It seems more likely to me that whatever culpable state of mind the statutes require was more likely to be present for [Baskins] than for [Dunn.]â€ Evan Lee, Criminal Law professor, Hastings College of Law: Lee says Lockyerâ€™s charging decisions may have turned not only on mental states but the depth of the suspectsâ€™ involvement in the investigation. He says Lockyer may know details that might exculpate Baskins. If a corporate board is involved in â€œcloak and dagger stuff,â€ he says, itâ€™s possible that it would hide details from a general counsel. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] The WSJ Law Blog asks the question I asked in my last post on HP: Bill Lockyer has indicted Patricia Dunn and Kevin Hunsaker &#8211; why not Ann Baskins?:  We posed the why-not-Baskins question to three law professors, who offered their opinions with the obvious caveat that they do not know all the facts that Lockyer relied upon in deciding who to charge: Robert Weisberg, Criminal Law Professor, Stanford University: He says Lockyer might have excused Baskins, because he believes she might be a â€œsource of evidence against others. That would not be the first time that someone who looked as guilty as others got off because they are the most useful as cooperators.â€ Weisberg believes Baskins will not be charged at a later date. â€œFrom the flavor of Lockyerâ€™s statements, it didnâ€™t sound like this is the start. It looked like he had put together a package and [Baskins] wasnâ€™t in the package.â€ Deborah DeMott, Corporate Law professor, Duke University School of Law: â€œIt seems puzzling to me. It seems more likely to me that whatever culpable state of mind the statutes require was more likely to be present for [Baskins] than for [Dunn.]â€ Evan Lee, Criminal Law professor, Hastings College of Law: Lee says Lockyerâ€™s charging decisions may have turned not only on mental states but the depth of the suspectsâ€™ involvement in the investigation. He says Lockyer may know details that might exculpate Baskins. If a corporate board is involved in â€œcloak and dagger stuff,â€ he says, itâ€™s possible that it would hide details from a general counsel. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Corporate and Securities Law Blog</title>
		<link>http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/comment-page-1/#comment-17950</link>
		<dc:creator>Corporate and Securities Law Blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Oct 2006 17:15:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.robhyndman.com/2006/10/04/the-hp-saga-lockyer-lowers-the-boom/#comment-17950</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;HP Part XLI -- Indictments Come Down; Other Updates...&lt;/strong&gt;

The California Attorney General has brought indictments against Patricia Dunn, Kevin Hunsaker, Ron DeLia and 2 other private investigators implicated in the pretexting mess. Here is a link to the press release, with the indictment itself attached. Here...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>HP Part XLI &#8212; Indictments Come Down; Other Updates&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>The California Attorney General has brought indictments against Patricia Dunn, Kevin Hunsaker, Ron DeLia and 2 other private investigators implicated in the pretexting mess. Here is a link to the press release, with the indictment itself attached. Here&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
