H-P's Dunn Enters No Plea, Charges Dismissed

GogglesPisano writes "CNN earlier reported that former HP chairwoman Patricia Dunn would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of fraudulent wire communications stemming from her involvement in last year's corporate eavesdropping scandal. The story was later amended after charges again st Dunn were dropped. The original charges, four felony counts, were reduced to misdemeanors in exchange for a plea bargain. Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service; in Dunn's case this sentence is likely to be waived due to illness." Update: 03/15 02:21 GMT by KD : The prosecutor in the case issued a correction to the eariler pronouncement that Dunn would plead guilty to a misdemeanor. "At court today, Patricia Dunn did not enter any plea in response to the misdemeanor count, and the court exercised its discretion by dismissing the case against her," the revised statement said.

Comments

Phone Cleaning

[biocute]

Rubbish! Dunn should still be expected do some light community services despite the illness.

Phone cleaning lady springs to mind, it's lightwork.

Re:Phone Cleaning

[ltbarcly]

What a bunch of crap. She's well enough to run a major corporation, but too sick to go to jail?

It goes to show you that if you're rich, you won't go to jail no matter what.

Wrong

[terrymr]

According to TFA the court dismissed the charges against Dunn - do the submitters not read the TFA either ?

Re:Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The prosecutor's office press release was wrong, the AP reported on that and everyone ran with it. The AP story has now been corrected, so in this case, the submitter should be given some leeway.

Re:Wrong

[GogglesPisano]

Yes, I did read the article.

In the roughly three hours that elapsed between the time that I submitted the story and the time that it appeared on the Slashdot front page, there were apparently further developments in the story and the article on CNN was changed.

I refer you to the (modified) CNN article:

Earlier today the California Attorney General's office issued an incorrect press release stating that defendants would enter guilty pleas to the wire fraud charges.

Re:Wrong

[terrymr]

How did I get moderated Troll for this one ?

Sickness

[Anonymous Coward]

From Wikipedia:
"Dunn has survived breast cancer and melanoma, and was diagnosed with Stage IV ovarian cancer in January 2004. Chemotherapy treatment led to remission until August 2006, when she underwent surgery to remove liver metastases. Dunn was scheduled to start chemotherapy for advanced ovarian cancer on 6 October 2006 at the University of California-San Francisco Medical Center."

Re:Sickness

[Anonymous Coward]

at least the great magnet is taking up the slack our justice system let out.

Re:Sickness

[dave562]

So she spent the best years of her life climbing over other people to get to the top, and now that she's there her body is completely trashed. Hmmmmm, I think I'll stick with my $65k a year and lots of free time to exercise and eat well.

Re:Sickness

[Ghworg]

That's what excessive use of the Dark Side will do to you.

Re:Sickness

[dougmc]

Hmmmmm, I think I'll stick with my $65k a year and lots of free time to exercise and eat well. Eat right, stay fit, and die anyway.

Re:Sickness

[dave562]

Eat right, stay fit, and die anyway.

Very true, we all die in the end. For me the trade off is whether I will be fit and mobile in old age, or will I be popping pills and half conscious because of all the medications? When you look at someone like Dunn who has a bunch of cancer in her body, it's pretty obvious that she didn't have the time to eat well and exercise. She was too busy working those long hours and earning all of that money, which is now worthless to her now that she is at the end of her life and having to give it all to doctors so that they can "treat" her.

Re:Sickness

[Anonymous Coward]

When you look at someone like Dunn who has a bunch of cancer in her body, it's pretty obvious that she didn't have the time to eat well and exercise.

Bullshit, that's not obvious at all. For all you know she worked out 2 hours a day, counted every calorie, and stayed away from alcohol/cigarettes/drugs for her entire life.

With a few exceptions (lungs, etc.), cancer just happens.

At that very most, that's a lame excuse for why you're poor and healthy, and she's not.

Re:Sickness

[Splab]

Not me! I'm gonna live forever.. Or die trying!

Re:Sickness

[dougmc]

When you look at someone like Dunn who has a bunch of cancer in her body, it's pretty obvious that she didn't have the time to eat well and exercise.

You must see something I don't -- I don't see anything about her that screams that she obviously didn't have time to eat well and exercise. CEOs often are very busy with their jobs, that's true, but often they're driven to be extremely fit as well, especially the younger ones. (Not always, but often.)

Not that I know anything about Dunn. She doesn't look particularly out of shape in any pictures I've seen of her, so I don't know where this `obvious' comes from.

And even extremely healthy people, who stay fit and always eat right, get cancer. They just get it less often ...

Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[isaac]

Can you not read? All charges against Dunn were dismissed.

Personally, I thought Patty Dunn deserved jail, along with Hurd (who by most accounts, including his own, was aware of the pretexting). A regular joe charged with a similar felony wouldn't get a walk just because of health problems; neither should Dunn. I hope Tom Perkins takes her to the cleaners in civil court.

-Isaac

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[JackMeyhoff]

Why would Tom Perkins takes her to the cleaners? Let her clean her own stuff.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[drinkypoo]

A regular joe charged with a similar felony wouldn't get a walk just because of health problems; neither should Dunn.

A regular joe charged with a similar felony probably wouldn't get a chance to plea bargain down to misdemeanor, either. If they did, they'd still get more than a few hours of community service.

Welcome to the real world, though; if you have money, you can walk. It's the capitalistic way!

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Duhavid]

Yes, that is what the article says.

It goes on to say that the charges were dropped
due to her illness, not because she was innocent,
and that the arrest will remain on her record.

I agree with you on the unfairness.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[ApharmdB]

Very true. A regular joe will get prosecuted for using marijuana even if her doctor says it is the only thing keeping her alive. So not only is she getting prosecuted while having health problems, the prosecution will make her health problems kill her.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap /index.html

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Maxo-Texas]

It's not the capitalist way.

There is nothing uniquely capitalist about using political power and connections to be treated differently by the justice system. It happens all over the world. It's always happened here in the US too.

In some cases, actually offering money (aka capitalism) will get you in more trouble while hinting that you can get them a job, an invite to the party, get their relative a nice fat government contract, is safer and more effective. It's so popular even communists and fascists do it.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[AuMatar]

Medical marijuana is a pain killer, not a cure for anything. So there is never going to be a situation where marijuana is the only thing keeping someone alive. Bad comparison.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[stratjakt]

Read the parents link. Her doctor testified that marijuana is the only drug that allows her to eat. He has tried all other treatments, with no response.

Eating is a biological necessity. Marijuana IS keeping her (and many other similar patients) alive.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[spun]

True, but that is not the way it should be. Justice should be blind to money and power as it is to all else except the facts relevant to the case at hand. Arguably, any system where it isn't blind to money and power is a long way from perfect.

This blatant and unapologetic nature of this decision, and others of a similar outcome, point to the particularly greedy and corrosive nature of our system of capitalism. We value money so much that we do not even attempt to disguise the fact that it can buy you out of anything. The rules are different for the rich in America, and we don't care who knows it.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

the particularly greedy and corrosive nature of our system of capitalism Our system of capitalism isn't really capitalism. It's a pyramid scheme of debt. Those in priveleged parts of the pyramid are allowed to create debt for others (see HP's stock price), retain profit for themselves (how much were these jokers being paid?), while being shielded from any real-world repercussions (96 hours of suspended community service for four felonies isn't a bad deal at all).

Once in a while, for PR purposes, someone has to take a real fall (eg. Lay, Martha). Usually they get pampered once they're out of the spotlight.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[ILikeRed]

I have had someone I cared about die because she could not eat, and was not going to use an illegal drug to help with her pain and loss of appetite. (Even though one of her doctors suggested it.) Would she have lived if she could have finished her cancer treatments? Maybe, but not being to eat because of her other medicines did kill her.

I really just don't see the whole point - I don't wish to take any recreational drugs, but I can not see any problems with any illegal drugs that was not also true of bathtub gin and the alcohol runners and sellers during the US prohibition.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[ApharmdB]

You obviously didn't read the article. The doctor has her take it in order to give her an appetite. Without it she doesn't eat. If you don't eat, you die. So the marijuana is keeping her alive, albeit indirectly.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[dbIII]

There isn't a lot of point in putting dying people in jail no matter what they have done. The purpose of imprisonment is to protect society from people that may harm it when there is no other option, not to get some smug feeling of revenge well served. There are better uses of taxpayers money than expensive imprisonment for petty revenge - so even utter bastards of corporate criminals are better neutered by preventing them from practicing anything that will allow them to reoffend and discouraging them with fines. As for the dying, they are unlikely to ever reoffend and may not even survive to the end of expensive proceedings designed to put them in jail for a very brief period of cruel and expensive time in prison hospitals.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Anonymous Coward]

What about pressing charges against Tom Perkins and Jay Keyworth for leaking private board room conversations? That is (or should be) a violation of federal securities law. Read the article in the New Yorker from a few weeks ago. They were a couple of cowboy's in the board room that cared about their ego more than HP.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

purpose of imprisonment is to protect society from people that may harm it when there is no other option Of the 283 executives named in the original filing against Enron, how are we, the common American investors, being protected from the 278 who never saw the inside of a courtroom? How are we, the common American consumers, being protected from the kinds of stock losses and business fraud that Hurd and Dunn could very well commit again?

There are better uses of taxpayers money If only the power to use it were truly in our hands and not in the hands of people who owe political or financial allegiance to crooks like the ones in this story.

We, the common citizens, do not have any power of the purse--it's all taxed away to be allocated at someone else's discretion.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[dbIII]

How are we, the common American consumers, being protected from the kinds of stock losses and business fraud that Hurd and Dunn could very well commit again?

Good point, in a lot of white collar crime cases in my country judges rule that those convicted cannot work as company directors, CEO's or various other restrictions for set periods of time - that is what protects society is you put them in a position where the cannot commit the original crime again for a long period of time. If they break these conditions I think it's contempt of court or definitely a breach of some kind that does result in jail time to keep them from re-offending.

Were any other restrictions were placed on those found guilty in the case of Enron or is it still ongoing, or even just dropped? If it was dropped it looks very much like a scapegoat was found and the others set loose once justice looked like it was done in the TV news soundbites.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Were any other restrictions were placed on those found guilty in the case of Enron or is it still ongoing, or even just dropped? 283 were named, 5 made it to the courtroom, Skilling and Lay were the only ones to see any formal judiciary penalty (afaik). The rest are still able to continue working the Wall Street/DC money pyramid to bilk the common investors/taxpayers for their own profit.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new to America.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[isaac]

The purpose of imprisonment is to protect society from people that may harm it when there is no other option, not to get some smug feeling of revenge well served.

...says you. In the real world, there are many valid philosophies about the purpose of incarceration. There's rehabilitation - the purpose of a "correctional facility" is to correct the behavior of prisoners. There's deterrence - the purpose of prison is to be unpleasant so people won't commit crimes and risk imprisonment. There's the prison as penitentiary - the prisoner is to be made to feel sorry for what they have done. There's the custodial interest - the prisoner is to be kept away from society so they will be unable to commit crimes. There's repayment of a debt to society - the prisoner is to be made to work off their crime. And, yes, there's the retributive interest - the prisoner should suffer as they have made others suffer, to promote respect for the law.

If Patty Dunn had ordered you followed and your identity stolen, I don't think you'd be so dismissive of the retributive and deterrent interests. I fail to see how giving people in poor health a free pass does anything to promote respect for the law - it would seem, rather, to promote flagrant disregard of the law by the unhealthy or dying.

No, in my criminal justice system, Ms. Dunn would be tried and if found guilty by a jury of her peers, would serve that brief and painful turn in an unpleasant hospital ward. Her family would suffer, her estate would be drained by legal process. All of this would be right and good because it would say to the world that such fraud has real and painful consequences and you don't get to escape them just because you're rich and unwell.

-Isaac

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Dun Malg]

Medical marijuana is a pain killer, not a cure for anything. So there is never going to be a situation where marijuana is the only thing keeping someone alive. Bad comparison. No, you're just an idiot pulling ignorance out of his ass. The analgesic effect of THC is secondary. The primary benefit is its anti-nausea effect. It can make the difference between a chemo patient being able to eat vs. not being able to keep anything down and slowly starving and weakening on a glucose drip.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[dbIII]

The valid philosophies including imprisioning for a period to allow rehabilitation are summed up as protecting society. If we do not need to be protected from this person locking them up is pointless, expensive and ultimately a heartless demonstration that can produce a crueler society and turn people away from the system. A bible inspired society such as the nastiest of the pointless law and order for the sake of it advocates should rememeber there is a second part that is not about an eye for an eye and pointless vendettas.

I didn't say much above, so i don't know where the concept of not locking up sick people that are a present threat to society came from. This person is not violent and is no longer in any position to commit another corporate crime for the remainder of their life, so either locking her up or poking her eye out with a stick is pointless, cruel, expensive and no deterrent. It's the others with just community service and no restrictions on how they continue their working life that is the problem - I do not know why they are not barred from any position of responsibility for a long period of time or at least given strict reporting conditions to make the consequences of reoffending more severe.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[mabhatter654]

a regular joe would never be bothered with such petty charges anyway... she had a marginally legal right to the info, and a marginally legal "plausable denyability" of involvement. The only real evidence they had on her was some conversations she had with the board members.. that's like trying to accuse a rapper of murder for a rap about "bustin a cap". If stuff like this was really important, they'd prosecute all the papparazzi that trespass on celebrity property, and nearly threaten their lives. They'd prosecute all the FBI agents that misused those "patriot letters" (I'm sure there's a purgery clause in there). They'd prosecute all the fake DMCA notices.... The whole thing was selective enforcement for political/financial gain of the bastard board member.

If anybody got off with a crime, it's the board member that leaked info about company financial issues and strategy to the press, and defied the trust of the board of directors and their elected officer Carly. Most slashdotters are still not getting that most of the bad press and "revelations" about how "bad" Carly was were because of those board members... She was implementing the will of the board as discussed in private meetings and one dissenting board member was publicly undermining her position. Those board members should have been expelled from the company and their stocks ceased/cashed in. If those board members were employees they would be facing criminal and civil court cases worth hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.... Look what Apple does to leakers... that should have been certain members of the board. The board didn't even slap them on the wrist for violation of their affirmed duties to the company!!

I don't get why slashdotters are so against Dunn.. she did exactly what we root for here all the time. She saw a crime committed against her company and went a little overboard. How often do we rally over documents that are outright stolen, broken NDAs, hacked IP addresses and DoS'd websites we don't like... those are all criminal acts too, often because somebody supposedly "cheated" a customer out of a $10 rebate on some toy.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Fnkmaster]

These people who flap their mouths have never really seen somebody waste away and die from cancer, I guarantee it. I mean *really* see it. Like watch every single day as they get thinner, and thinner, and weaker, and weaker, and go through surgery and chemotherapy and spend months in hospitals, wasting away, getting pumped full of valium and zofran (supposed the most effective anti-emetic they have) to keep the nausea at bay while they try futilely to stave off the cancer.

If you had seen it like I have, and somebody told you that smoking pot made them feel even 10% better and able to keep food down and maybe as a result just live a few months longer than they would have otherwise, or be strong enough to walk instead of lying in bed awaiting their death, you'd be growing a fucking cannabis farm for them. Or giving them whatever the hell they want, public policy stupidity be damned.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[bill_mcgonigle]

but I can not see any problems with any illegal drugs that was not also true of bathtub gin and the alcohol runners and sellers during the US prohibition.

Illegal drugs don't have a SWAT team of lobbyists.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[isaac]

The valid philosophies including imprisioning for a period to allow rehabilitation are summed up as protecting society. If we do not need to be protected from this person locking them up is pointless, expensive and ultimately a heartless demonstration that can produce a crueler society and turn people away from the system.

I don't know why you write off deterrence. It's not about deterring the sick lady from committing fraud again - it's about deterring others from committing fraud.

Do the crime, do the time. If you've only got 6 months to live, tough. Die in prison. This isn't cruelty, it's justice.

(I'm not happy about the others skating on these charges either)

-Isaac

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[dbIII]

Detering other sick ladies from offending is pointless and expensive, and the healthy know that justice will still go after them. Pretending to be terminally ill to evade justice hasn't worked for very long for those that tried it (eg. the Australian criminal Christopher Skase). Deterrence can be written off in a lot of cases anyway due to criminals not really caring or thinking it will never happen to them - it's sometimes as pointless as putting rat heads on sticks to deter other rats. The situation in England of imprisoning people for a very wide of offences and then transporting them to places like North America when the jails filled up was one of the triggers for the revolution - the sort of deterrence the short sighted are aiming for today failed dismally back then and copying that situation is provding some of the same huge social problems in poor parts of the USA. Judges are rarely stupid and if they decide in a paticular case it isn't worth the bother of imprisonment in an overcrowed and expensive system they may be correct. There are plenty of living offenders to deal with without going after the ones that may not survive to sentencing.

It's not so simple as an eye for an eye - that's vote winning rhetoric of Christianity Lite - now with 80% less Jesus than conventional hard line protestants.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[jschrod]

Amen. And the same can be said about morphium in the last weeks, when the pain really gets hard -- it's a shame that it's so hard to come by. (Here in Germany, one gets it if the dying person is in the hospital; but if one has a dying parent in home care, it's almost impossible to get some for emergency situations, e.g., for the night.)

My father died from liver cancer last year, and a very good friend of mine is dying from lung cancer right now. (He has metastases [sp?] and last week new cancer cells were detected in his brain water.) Seeing those loved persons disappear slowly, time over time, is one of the hardest things to watch. When my grandma died by a stroke, I thought it was hard. I didn't know how hard it is to watch a loved one dying over months and years.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[Maxo-Texas]

I know. Sometime between 1980 and today, they seem to have lost all shame.

Re:Can't you read? Charges were dropped!

[spun]

Sigh. If people were perfect, any system of government would work, but then you wouldn't even need one. The trick is to come up with a system that accounts for people's actual imperfections while still upholding people's rights.

I don't think the rich and powerful lost all shame, as I don't think they had it to begin with. What they had was a sense of connection to and responsibility for their countries and communities. I think they imagined themselves to be like feudal lords, and felt a kind of noblesse oblige. Globalism has destroyed that, and now the rich and powerful live and operate in an extra-national sphere where they are almost completely isolated from the common person.

As Heinlein said, "Never appeal to a man's better nature. He might not have one. Appeal to his self interest instead." How can we show the rich and powerful that it is in their best interest to come down off their pedestal and join the rest of humanity? I think that being on a pedestal, people feel isolated and alone. They may have power, but no true friends, as it is a vicious dog-eat-dog world they live in. The rich have temporary allies who might stab them in the back the moment it is profitable, not friends. Perhaps focusing on this aspect of wealth and power could help convince them there is something in giving up their power that will benefit them.

That won't help with the real crazies, though, and there are a disproportionate number of narcissistic, anti social, and downright sociopathic people in the ranks of the rich and powerful. Rooting them out without resorting to the failed methodology of violent revolution will be the most difficult part of creating a more fair and just system.

Rich people with illness

[Anonymous Coward]

Always funny how Rich People can always get the best treatments and be in their tip top shape EXCEPT when they need to do something as part of their punishment. Then all of a sudden they are too sick. What a crock of bullshit. But in other news "Rich folks evade justice...again".

Summary is wrong, once again.

[Radon360]

She didn't plead guilty, the charges were dropped. From TFA:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A state judge in California Wednesday dropped the charges against ex-Hewlett-Packard chair Patricia Dunn, who was accused of wire fraud in the company's boardroom spying scandal.

Earlier today the California Attorney General's office issued an incorrect press release stating that defendants would enter guilty pleas to the wire fraud charges.

No Contest

[adam613]

They didn't plead guilty; they plead no contest. It's much different. Good thing the submitters and editors RTFA.

Re:No Contest

[Boogaroo]

Still, I seriously doubt that you or I would receive only community service sentence.

Re:No Contest

[illegalcortex]

I'm wondering if they didn't change the article out from under us. This was submitted to digg the same way, pointing to the same article. This is backed up by the fact that the AG originally put out an incorrect press release. I hate it when they change things that without linking to the history or even putting "UPDATED" or "CORRECTED".

Re:No Contest

[el americano]

they plead no contest. It's much different.

It's slightly different. It only keeps your plea from being used against you in other cases. Otherwise, it's treated the same as a guilty plea. This is typically done when the defendant expects a civil case to follow the criminal one, and the confession of guilt would prejudice it. This could be why she's not saying, "I admit that I was wrong, and I'm grateful for the judgement," because technically she didn't admit to being wrong, she was just surrendering her case.

The judge didn't accept the pleas anyway, preferring to dismiss the charges, so it didn't matter in the end.

You have to be kidding.

[JustNiz]

Plea bargain down to misdemeanours, sentence waived due to illness.
Gee I bet she's quaking in her boots.
I wonder if the judge is now an HP shareholder.
I bet she'll even pick up a pay-rise this year from HP.

Re:You have to be kidding.

[HomelessInLaJolla]

So these people are allowed a free pass for insider trading, wire fraud, and probably bilking millions of dollars out of shareholders... ...and I'm looking at a $380 fine and a court ordered ban from a park for being there after 10 PM one night.

Are they going to be banned from the boardroom?

Re:You have to be kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, what? a ban for being in a park at night? God forbid you might want to, you know, hang out with a girlfriend in a quiet area - or stargaze (though depending on the city that might be difficult) - or just hang out with friends in general (I once had a "fight" with Amtgard gear in a park at midnight)

Re:You have to be kidding.

[dbIII]

It sounds like a judge or prosecutor decided there is unlikely to be enough time before she dies to continue with the case or punishment. It happens all over the world with a lot of cases.

Must be nice to be rich

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd get a stiffer penalty for jaywalking

These assholes get away clean, with no criminal records and not a day in jail. Wanna bet what would happen to you or I if we got caught doing the same thing?

Re:Must be nice to be rich

[Idarubicin]

Must be nice to be rich

Actually, it's probably more a perq that comes with being terminally ill. Having late stage metastatic cancer probably means that she'll be dead within the year. Juries have a habit of finding weakened, dying women to be rather sympathetic defendants.

Re:Must be nice to be rich

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, how does being terminal, assuming this claim is not also a fraud, play into breaking the law? Ahem, on what pretext do we not prosecute because of who the defendant is or what they are presently going through?

I would say it is mighty interesting a press release came out earlier in the day saying essentially the opposite of what the correction said. Since when do prosecutors' offices get a public announcement of whether or not they are going to charge somebody with a crime wrong?

What crime?!?!

[SultanJ]

Gee, I always wondered if white collar crime was ok, but now I have my answer. What a sad state this country is in. If you have any combination of money and/or power, magically you're not a criminal anymore. This doesn't sound familiar does it?

Re:What crime?!?!

[tkrotchko]

It's not just that it was white collar, it's that the people doing it were rich and powerful.

The trouble with saying that it's "white collar" is that it doesn't recognize the real reason she got a pass. She's rich and has powerful friends.

Re:What crime?!?!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

She's rich and has powerful friends Lately the administration has been firing federal prosecutors who go after people who are rich and have powerful friends.

Re:What crime?!?!

[stratjakt]

She didn't "gack a nigga fo his nikes", she listened in on some phone conversations. She was prosecuted and convicted. Judges suspend sentences all the time.

So, that's the end of that. She was punished, severely. Look at HP's stock price, and realize she'll be unemployed by the end of the year.

Why do you think someone would get jail time for snoopin' around?

Re:What crime?!?!

[HomelessInLaJolla]

Why do you think someone would get jail time for snoopin' around? The snooping was conducted in the course of defrauding investors. There may have been people who lost their homes because of it.

realize she'll be unemployed by the end of the year Every geek's dream is to be unemployed and independently wealthy. Plenty of time to test all of those fledgling OSs that we never had time for. Plenty of time to sync the entire music collection and stream it, independently or together, to any/all speakers in the house. Plenty of time to sync the DVD collection and stream it, independently or together, to any/all screens in the house. Plenty of time to try setting up the home security system with webcams and motion detection. Plenty of time to turn IE bugs into full-fledged root-level trojans with Linux clients.

Don't ask me to feel sorry for an unemployed multi-millionaire.

Re:What crime?!?!

[mollymoo]

She didn't "gack a nigga fo his nikes", she listened in on some phone conversations. She was prosecuted and convicted. Judges suspend sentences all the time.

TFA changed, so I'll let you off with the inaccuracy. The charges were dropped, she wasn't punished at all. The charges were dropped because she has cancer. She had cancer for five years before she decided to break the law in this case.

Every story has a moral. The moral of this story: get rich and get cancer; then you can do whatever the fuck you like.

Re:What crime?!?!

[Millenniumman]

She has cancer, not some made up disease to keep her from being punished.

The crime she committed hurt no one. It was wrong, but no one was hurt.

Re:What crime?!?!

[Builder]

What do you mean hurt no-one ? It destroyed careers, forced men of integrity to walk away from a job where they had done nothing wrong, reduced the already failing morale at HP and damaged the company reputation.

Re:What crime?!?!

[matthewd]

The snooping was conducted in the course of defrauding investors.

This is what I don't get. One of the cited articles at CNN Money says the crime was pretexting. The reason for the crime was to find who on the BoD was leaking information to the media. I've never seen details on what the leaks were or whether they were good or bad for the company and whether they were good or bad for the shareholders. Without that information, it's hard to understand how the defrauding took place and how extensive it was.

Compare and Contrast

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrast:
September 2001, "You have no privacy - get over it", Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle.

With:
August 2006, AOL sacks, Maureen Govern and Abdur Chowdhury after they release AOL search results that have been 'cleaned' of personal information.
2007 March Patricia Dunn faces possible prosecution.

Seem Ellison is wrong, not only do we have privacy, if you remove our privacy, you end up in jail.

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service; in Dunn's case this sentence is likely to be waived due to illness. A quick show of hands: who believes in the fairness of the legal system in the United States?

You're probably the same ones who believe that voting can change anything.

As the G-Man once said: "Oh, ye suckers!"

ah

[mastershake_phd]

Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service; in Dunn's case this sentence is likely to be waived due to illness.
 
Ah, the system works....oh wait no it doesnt.

Re:ah

[dbIII]

Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service

I did more of that for a scout badge! And yes, it was phrased exactly that way and working with the same organisations, which is why I found it amusing at the time.

Here's why

[gcnaddict]

http://money.cnn.com/2007/03/14/technology/hpq/ind ex.htm?cnn=yes

"Earlier today the California Attorney General's office issued an incorrect press release stating that defendants would enter guilty pleas to the wire fraud charges."

Re:Here's why

[terrymr]

Kind of ironic when you put out a false press release in a case when you're dealing with fraud isn't it ?

Just plain wrong

[KingSkippus]

Leeway for the submitter? Okay. But whoever approved it to go on the front page needs to make a correction as quickly as possible. The headline and summary are just plain wrong. Seriously. 180 degrees.

I didn't see it posted as a "mysterious future" article or I would have e-mailed the editor to say, "Hey, this is extremely incorrect, and you need to not post it..."

Re:Just plain wrong

[Dun Malg]

As has been noted previously, the "editors" here are really little more than chimps who've learned to click an "accept submission" button. Doing any sort of sanity check on the content, or even checking to see if it's been posted here already, is far beyond their meager "skills". But it's OK, they're not being PAID to do this job, right?

I see having a penis really helps

[needacoolnickname]

First Martha, now her.

The Enron guy got to fake his death and walk away with gazillions.

Chics just can't catch a break.

Our laws...

[Awod]

Her three co-defendants are expected to receive 96 hours of community service; in Dunn's case this sentence is likely to be waived due to illness."

Meh my internet connection has been sucking as of late; I think i'll go murder the rep's at my local Verizon while I still have the flu.

Re:Our laws...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sigh... if only that was a valid defense....

this should set an example...

[Anonymous Coward]

96 hours of community service should discourage all future crimes of this nature.

Re:this should set an example...

[stratjakt]

Is that hundred million dollars really worth it?

96 hours, thats a stratjakt-sized work week!

Or 96 Patricia Dunn work weeks.

Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

Karma is a bitch.

Re:Karma

[Anonymous Coward]

She may have been deceitful and greedy, but your suggestion that she deserves ovarian and breast cancer is shameful and repellent.

Re:Karma

[Dun Malg]

Karma is unknowable. Who are you to say what karmic result the Universe might deem appropriate for any given action?
At any rate, the GP poster is still an idiot, because karma is a much larger system than that. It doesn't work on the scale of "kick a dog, get struck by lightning". I wish that it wasn't bad karma to do horrible things to all those long haired new age dumbfucks out there who blame illnesses, accidents, and general bad luck on bad karma--- it ain't like that. It's more of a "be a bad person your whole life and risk coming back the next life as a bug" sort of arrangement. Smug, self-satisfied vegans don't have nearly the lock on good karma they think they do.

Re:Karma

[aeoo]

It's more of a "be a bad person your whole life and risk coming back the next life as a bug" sort of arrangement.

It's not like that either. Karma is a notion that effects of intentions do not vanish. Literally translated "karma" means intent. It doesn't mean "what's coming to you". The "what's coming to you" part is called karma vipaka. (the result of karma, or karmic "retribution" where retribution is not to be understood in the strictly moralistic sense)

What's unknowable about karma and its results is the specifics. Be a bad person and come back as a bug? We don't know. You can come back as a rich person. You can be a good person and come back as a bug. The specifics are not possible to calculate and/or establish.

What is generally said is that positive mindstream generally flows into positive mindstream. (Not always...no guarantees). So if you're a good person you may become a good bug with a good bug life -- positive experience. You donate lots and help lots of people and you might be reborn as a poor leper who is very happy and satisfied with life. It's not a tit for tat system as you say. No matter how absurdly good your karma is, you can be reborn in hell realm -- it's just that your life won't be that bad there. But this is uncertain.

There is an element of uncertainty in karma and karmic result/retribution. Besides the fact that specifics are unknowable, the general direction is also uncertain. Why? Because it's impossible to establish it. That's why.

The only thing we can be sure about is that the results of actions do not vanish into nothingness. But what exactly happens? Even Buddhas do not know.

Smug, self-satisfied vegans don't have nearly the lock on good karma they think they do.

That can be. But be careful tossing words around. What is the alternative to being self-satisfied? Is being self-dissatisfied more good? I don't think so. Is being smug that bad? Sure, it rubs your ego the wrong way. Is everything that rubs you the wrong way bad?

What you say seems kind of true on the surface, but under deep investigation it is not at all obvious.

Now, I'm not saying let's all be smug and self-satisfied. I'm just saying your criticism is basically hot air that you cannot support with anything other than your personal feelings (certainly not with reason or logic). Just be aware of that and it will be OK. That's what I think. :)

Re:Karma

[guruevi]

I thought Karma was the stuff you got for getting good modpoints. Mod me up, mod me up! Need karma!

Well well...

[GFree]

The fact that your regular folk would have been F'd in the A for something like this while the corporate suits get off pretty lightly, is yet another reason why it's called the legal system as opposed to the justice system.

Re:Well well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, cancer is not a get out of jail free card for everyone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2007/03/14/AR2007031401364.html

Hurd and Dunn? Sounds like a comedy routine

[spun]

"I heard-"
"No, I'm Hurd!"
"Hilarious, are you done?"
"No, I'm Dunn, he's Hurd!"
"Okay, what has he heard?"

At this point, I'm willing to bet everyone reading this is glad that none of the participants in this farce is named Watt...

Re:Hurd and Dunn? Sounds like a comedy routine

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I heard that Hurd will never do to Dunn what done did to his hearing. *sigh* Will Hurd ever be done?

Re:Hurd and Dunn? Sounds like a comedy routine

[Anonymous Coward]

Entertaining; as this could have also been the conversation at Nortel, the only company who was outted for fraud during the tech crash and still stands. Dunn was the interim CEO, and Hurd is a floor sleeper who worked his way up to the director of IS "Security" team as of today.

Re:Hurd and Dunn? Sounds like a comedy routine

[greg_barton]

I'm willing to bet everyone reading this is glad that none of the participants in this farce is named Watt...

That's not what I dun heard!

Re:Hurd and Dunn? Sounds like a comedy routine

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurd's on first. Dunn heard nothing. Watt is the question. I hope this makes it all clear.

Great Artcle tagline

[SeaFox]

The current bottom of the page tagline is rather amusing...

  "Some men rob you with a six-gun -- others with a fountain pen. -- Woodie Guthrie"

CNN revisionists in action?

[Radon360]

Well, if CNN revised their article after learning that the AG office's press release was incorrect, they should have posted the revised story as a new story and put a link to the revised story in place of the first one with a note saying that it's been revised. News stories should not be treated like it were the news company's Wiki.

It's somewhat bad policy not to leave some trail of the revision history. Why do journalists feel they can be so sloppy about their work? Do the editors not take their jobs seriously anymore?

ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

I read an interesting article in the New Yorker about this whole fiasco. The underlying theme was that lots of people were responsible for the disaster, but none of them actually realized what was going on. Dunn and Hurd, in particular, repeatedly asked both legal counsel and the people doing the problematic projects whether it was legal. I believe TNY cited evidence of five separate written requests for assessment of legality from Dunn alone, and every one of them came back with repeated assurances that everything was legal, these were routine operations, and there was no problem.
The other point of the article was that Dunn and Hurd both had access to the same material, both helped decide what needed to be done, and directed what was going on, but at the end of the day, Dunn lost her job and was charged with multiple felonies, while Hurd is now running the company.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[HomelessInLaJolla]

of people were responsible for the disaster, but none of them actually realized what was going on They should be guilty of perjury as well. There's a difference between "I don't remember what happened" and "I don't know what happened." They darn sure as heck knew what was going on.

every one of them came back with repeated assurances that everything was legal, these were routine operations, and there was no problem There's something wrong if people in Dunn and Hurd's positions aren't able to identify a yes-man or an outright liar. How much were they being paid? The more likely explanation is that they asked only for the purpose of creating an auditable paper trail to try and cover their behinds if the scam was every exposed.

Dunn lost her job and was charged with multiple felonies, while Hurd is now running the company Every scam creates a scapegoat when busted.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

>There's a difference between "I don't remember what happened" and "I don't know what happened." They darn sure as heck knew what was going on.

Obviously I don't *know* what was actually happening, but the writer's claim was that, yes, they knew exactly what was going on, were sufficiently worried about its legality to spend time researching it, and in the end, were repeatedly reassured by people who were more expert than they, that it was legal.

>There's something wrong if people in Dunn and Hurd's positions aren't able to identify a yes-man or an outright liar. How much were they being paid? The more likely explanation is that they asked only for the purpose of creating an auditable paper trail to try and cover their behinds if the scam was every exposed.

That's a real possibility, and I can't tell one way or the other.
But, in essence, a manager *must* rely on the manager's employees. A manager who goes and verifies every little decision, does all the research on everything being done... doesn't need employees because that manager's just done all the work. The employee is the expert on the job in question, and the manager is the expert in how that job fits into the grand scheme of the corporation. When a manager doubts a particular employee's answer, and goes and asks another employee, who is likewise more of an expert in the field than the manager, and gets the same answer, then what? If my manager refused to take both my and my coworker's assurances that what we were doing was the right thing, I'd consider my manager a micromanaging PHB.

To paraphrase King Henry V: every man's duty is to his king, but every man's soul is his own. The people who broke the law are responsible for breaking the law. A person who orders illegal actions, without knowing that those actions are illegal and having gone to some lengths to investigate whether they were actually illegal -- and having been told by corporate lawyers that the behavior is fine -- is much harder to find guilty.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[HomelessInLaJolla]

reassured by people who were more expert than they If I wouldn't believe it then why would I believe that someone making exponentially more than I would believe it? They were in positions where they were being paid not to be suckered by-fast talkers--and their defense is that they were suckered by fast-talkers?

A manager who goes and verifies every little decision This isn't about micromanaging. These were executive level decisions.

having gone to some lengths to investigate whether they were actually illegal It's my opinion that they went to lengths to make it look like they went to lengths because they already knew that what they were doing was illegal.

It'd be naive to think that they did something illegal without planning their defense in the event they were caught. 96 hourse of suspended community service for four felonies sounds like a pretty successful contingency plan.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

>This isn't about micromanaging. These were executive level decisions.

But it *is*. Managing: "make this happen." Micromanaging: "do it this way."

You'd have to be dumb to not consider that things might go awry, and have a contingency plan in case they DO go wrong. They're not dumb. I'm sure they had a backup plan, and it's very possible what we're seeing is exactly that. But at some point, second-guessing becomes tautologic: if a person is guilty because there's clear evidence, but also guilty because evidence sufficient to exonerate the person is itself evidence that the person guiltily manufactured exonerating evidence -- then what evidence is sufficient to exonerate the person?

Don't get me wrong: I think they did ordered something illegal and there should be repercussions. But I think those repercussions should be shared among a lot more people.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[HomelessInLaJolla]

You'd have to be dumb to not consider that things might go awry They were dumb to expect that the wiretapping they were engaging in wasn't illegal. How much were they being paid to know better? (This reasoning applies to the recent federal government wiretap scandal as well)

what evidence is sufficient to exonerate the person There is no exoneration for people in their position. They simply cannot make a plausible claim of innocence or naivete when their corporate position and yearly income require them to be shrewd and experienced.

I think those repercussions should be shared among a lot more people Very true. This is further evidence of a scam. In the original filing against Enron there were 283 executives named of which only 5 ever saw the inside of a courtroom.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[mOdQuArK!]

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse - except, apparently, if you're a rich, "upstanding" member of the community.

If they were worried enough about the legality of their operation to check with legal, then they damn well _knew_ that they were walking a dangerous line.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[TheoMurpse]

As they say, ignorance of the law is no excuse

To simplify things and, in doing so, to complicate things, the Supreme Court disagrees with you in certain situations. For one, see Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991):

willfullness ... requires the Government to prove that the defendant knew of this duty [i.e. the illegality of the action]

For another, see Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

"willfullness" ... require[s] ... a "purpose to disobey the law."

The Model Penal Code also says

there is some tendency on the part of legislatures and courts to provide for limited defenses of ignorance or mistake of law, even when that mistake or ignorance does not logically indicate the absense of the state of mind [emphasis added]

Most statutes require both an actus reus and a mens rea to convict. The mens rea is a state of mind required. The Supreme Court has frequently had to rule on whether this mens rea is necessary or not (it seems ridiculous under any theory of criminal punishment to punish someone for a crime which they did not know they were committing). Perhaps despite our prejudices against her, in this case, Dunn truly was mistaken.

Now let's fling some rotten tomatos at her.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

The government has guns, and apparently sufficient approval that they can seemingly get away with anything they want (which is a damn shame.) I have to wonder if perceived governmental laxity was part of what made people think it was okay to do something similar on a corporate realm.

Part of this -- I was thinking about this on the way home from work -- is also that justice isn't smooth. When people do something borderline and get away with it, other people see that and do something just a little worse that stands to line their pockets or fix problems. At some point, justice suddenly lurches in, tromples on someone, and makes a statement to everyone else that the line has been crossed. Lay and Skilling got massacred for their completely awful behavior, and maybe the HP thing is Justice redrawing the lines, and Dunn was just unlucky enough to be the one in the hot seat.

People in higher positions have (and should be held accountable for) much higher responsibility, as a result of their high pay and power. As you say, they should be shrewd and experienced. I think this situation was somewhat unusual in that board members don't leak stuff on an ongoing basis. That was one of the recurring points of the New Yorker article: that's a serious betrayal of trust and isn't something that boards of directors have to deal with. I don't think they DID have much experience with this situation, so they looked for a way to fix the leak (for good reason) and after a year of discussing it with other board members as a group and in private they started using other, lower methods.

Maybe this'll taint the entire idea of deceptive methods of getting information... but I doubt it.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

I think they knew very well that they were walking a dangerous line, but they had a hard problem: to stop a leak. (They did need to stop the leak, I would argue, based on other stuff I've read, to ensure that their high-level planning wasn't also getting out. Carly Fiorino seems to have indicated that part of her departure was because of infighting because of leak issues.)
What they were doing, discussing leaks and what problems they caused, with the other board members as a group and individually, wasn't working. So they resorted to using outside investigators and authorizing their illegal activities.
So the question (which is unanswerable if you're not one of the involved board members) becomes: were they repeatedly trying to get assurance of the legality of their actions because they wanted to know, or because they wanted to appear concerned as a CYA?
In any case, leaving extensive paper trail documenting your concern about the legality of behavior clearly indicates they knew what they were doing was borderline. Their problem was: the perceived reward (stopping the leak) was great compared to their perceived risk (lots of other people/companies/governments were pretexting, so why shouldn't they?)

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[swb]

I took the New Yorker article with a bit of a grain of salt. I think it went a little too far in accepting Patty's image of herself as a non-nonsense board member interested corporate governance buffeted between Carly haters and narcissistic venture capitalists.

I'm also skeptical of the usual "but they told me it was OK" finger-pointing merry-go-round that seems to indicate that merely asking someone else's opinion of the ethics of an action clears you of responsibility. We get that from every corporate scandal, when in reality its always a situation of them getting the answer they were looking for in the first place or yet another culture of don't-ask-don't-tell where results matter only slightly less than not getting caught.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

>I'm also skeptical of the usual "but they told me it was OK" finger-pointing merry-go-round that seems to indicate that merely asking someone else's opinion of the ethics of an action clears you of responsibility. We get that from every corporate scandal, when in reality its always a situation of them getting the answer they were looking for in the first place or yet another culture of don't-ask-don't-tell where results matter only slightly less than not getting caught.

Not just corporate: look at the Iraq/WMD issue. People tell you what you want to hear (especially if they're you're employees) and when people talk you hear what you want them to say. That doesn't clear the decider of responsibility. But it raises a question, which I've been on about at length in this thread: how do you verify? You do the research, but if it's not your area of expertise, you ask experts. If they tell you what you want to hear, how do you know? What's a good mechanism to ensure data validity? Consider (as a few nutjobs have proposed) that you want to discredit the President so you place a bunch of moles in various positions and have them all feed false information about WMD's upwards, so that analysis of multiple sources of data returns similar summaries, all false. I'm quite sure that didn't happen, but if it did, could we blame the person who got stuck with all the false data and made a bad decision based on it? Now consider the more gray case where several people who are apparently experts all think something's legal, either because they've done it in the past or because they know other people who are doing it, so they all reply to inquiries about legality by saying it's legal, and they're the experts. Someone who is trying to find an answer gets the same tainted reply from several expert sources. How much can we blame the person for believing them?

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[swb]

> But it raises a question, which I've been on about at length in this thread: how do you verify? You do the research, but if it's not your area of expertise, you ask experts. If they tell you what you want to hear, how do you know?

It's a worthy problem, and I think it highlights a couple of problems:

1) Over-reliance on expert opinion. I think this is due to both lack of knowledge on the part of the decision makers and excessive scope of decision making. A decision maker perhaps should be smarter and/or better educated so that they can review some primary material and make a more informed decision *or* they should reduce the scope about which they make decisions.

2) Politicization. Advisory positions used to be above or outside of politics; experts relied on for specialized knowledge should be rank-and-file types judged and valued for their knowledge and analysis skills, not their political allegiances. We reached that point because decision makers have placed yes-men in advisory roles, and I also think a certain portion of the expert community has also allowed itself to bias the information they provide in the hope of decisions they favor -- something of a feedback loop.

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[smellsofbikes]

I hadn't thought about politicization per se, but that's a good point, and a very difficult one. There are sites like Wikipedia that try for NPOV, and on the opposite side of the fence there are people who listen to both fox and npr on the theory that they know the biases. It's harder for an individual running a company, where the experts' biases might not be worn on their sleeves.

The whole point of a board of directors is to be an independent guidance system for the CEO. One of the ideas HP was trying was to have the CEO independent of the BoD (which idea they discarded during this fiasco.) The problem is, of course, that all the BoD's of all the different companies are the same people, and they all use the same decision-making processes. Makes me wonder if a BoD shouldn't consist of people from outside the industry entirely -- but then they wouldn't make good business decisions. Or maybe it should have people from the company's rank-and-file, but that's not trouble-free either, because they have access to the business decisions and strategies, which is a company's true crown jewels.

Hm. I'm glad I'm just a small frog in a big pond some days, although I wouldn't mind the paychecks...

Re:ambiguous responsibility

[swb]

I think the ideal BoD is comprised of:

1) Industry experts
2) Business experts from outside the industry
3) Good rank-and-file employee sampling (proportionate represenation; ie, not all lunchboxes or suits)

You need input from all three to run the company well. All the genius industry expertise means crap of rank-and-file says it isn't working, and business experts from outside the industry can bring P&L/governance/etc expertise that might not be well represented within the industry, as well as provide market guidance (ie, HP sells PCs to the tech industry, but most go OUTSIDE the tech industry -- having non-tech experts on the board could provide really helpful advice).

Source of the confusion - California AG office

[SpaceLifeForm]

Link

The California Attorney General's office issued a statement saying that its news release "mistakenly predicted that the HP defendants would enter 'guilty' pleas to a misdemeanour count of fraudulent wire communications."

Strange that they would make a prediction. Perhaps that is a coverup as to what really happened.

Tag it as "inaccurate"

[illegalcortex]

Everyone should tag it as inaccurate (or should that be "!accurate"). That's a tag I wish would catch on. Then they should auto-filter out all inaccurate and dupe articles from the default front page.

Re:Tag it as "inaccurate"

[Duhavid]

The future called, they want the front page back.

Re:Tag it as "inaccurate"

[illegalcortex]

Well done, sir. Well done.

Re:Tag it as "inaccurate"

[Duhavid]

Thank you.

Plea bargains

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'm I the only person who sees plea bargains as unjust?

If someone did a crime, he deserves an appropriate penalty. If he did no crime, he deserves no penalty.

Plea bargains say, we're kind of sure you did the time, but you can't afford the risk of a defense and/or the risk of being falsely convicted, and we'd rather not spend the money investigating / prosecuting to the point where we could convince a jury, so how about we split the difference?

The result: the guilty go free, and the innocent pay a price. Nice.

Re:Plea bargains

[stratjakt]

What do you think is an appropriate punishment?

The fact that she was convicted at all is enough for me. HPs stock has taken it up the ass, and they won't keep her around.

She's getting her come-uppance, and I'm fine with that.

Re:Plea bargains

[HomelessInLaJolla]

HPs stock has taken it up the ass All the more reason that Hurd and Dunn should be sitting in prison. Their actions have caused thousands of people to lose millions of dollars. How can anyone have pity for them? Don't executives have any responsibility?

Re:Plea bargains

[Anonymous Coward]

Plea bargains have three uses. The first is that it allows the prosecutor to put people away who are guilty but would otherwise get off. This is a good use. The second use is to railroad people who are innocent but are scared of getting convicted for the full penalty. This is not a good use. The third is to get information you wouldn't otherwise get from a defendant for use in prosecuting someone else. This is a gray area.

The real problem with the current legal system is that prosecutors are more worried about their conviction rate.

Re:Plea bargains

[sitarah]

I can't respond to you about whether it is just or not, but just for general knowledge, I want to point out the significance of your "we'd rather not spend the money investigating" statement. Giving everyone accused of a crime a full trial would indeed be extremely expensive in both time and money. Our current system operates at the speed and cost that it does with only a 5%-to-trial rate. ("95% of felony convictions in State courts were achieved through guilty plea.." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, State Court Sentencing of Convicted Felons, 2000, 43 (2003))

In Canada, they resolve 92% of their cases via plea bargaining -- but their justice system still costs 12 billion a year. Our courts would be severely stressed under 100% case-load, and the result - quick, unthorough trials or trials taking years to even begin - might be even more undesirable than guilty people getting away with a smaller sentence.

I find it more disgusting that Dunn got off for being ill with cancer, then had the nerve to say "I have always had faith that the truth would win out and justice would be served - and it has been." Justice is.. that people with cancer can commit crimes? Funnily enough, if you're in pain from.. say.. cancer and take marijuana, you can go to prison as of today's ruling.

Marijuana.Evil > Spying.Evil? Ridiculous.

Re:Plea bargains

[rholland356]

People who live in a black & white world see no value in plea bargains. Or defense lawyers, for that matter.

And yet, plea bargains and settlements are quite common and useful. It is left to you to figure out how the standard of "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt" squares with the inability of any human to have absolute knowledge of any event.

Who?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who Dunn it?

sentance her to HP tech support

[v3xt0r]

Or send her to the NPO I work for. We can (gladly) make her work-off her sentance by making her sit in our NOC and fix all of our broken HP products, or at least get (some of) them to work. =p

Re:sentance her to HP tech support

[Duhavid]

You mean to have to use HP tech support?

Dont the Geneva conventions disallow that?
What about the cruel and unusual clauses?

Medical Marijuana is still illegal...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and people who are dying are still being prosecuted under the law for smoking or eating it but this chick gets her sentence reduced to nothing due to illness? What a pillock!

Re:Medical Marijuana is still illegal...

[stratjakt]

Suspending a sentence isnt the same as reducing it.

On paper she was still sentenced to community service, and if she's before a judge again one day, that's what he'll see. That's what's on her record, that the crime she was convicted of was serious enough to warrant that penalty. That's what hurts. Spending a half day picking up cans, and then having your supervisor sign "96 hours" (thats how community service works in my experience) doesn't mean anything.

Charges against HP's Dunn dropped

[Anonymous Coward]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/macworld/20070314/tc_macwo rld/dunn20070314

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

A woman dying of a terminal illness will be prosecuted for smoking marijuana.

God bless America? Yeah, it's going to fucking need it.

Their first mistake -

[wsanders]

- they asked their "Chief Ethics Officer" about the mess, wasn't that Hunsacker's title?, about the legality of it all.

You don't ask a lawyer to explain what is ethical. You ask lawyers what's LEGAL, not what's ETHICAL.

Go Ahead Do Nothing

[asphaltjesus]

Whining about how the rich and powerful have it easy in the /. echo chamber is the easiest thing to do. It makes you and the moderators feel better too.

Meanwhile, it's our economy (that means your economic prosperity in comparison to others in the world) that is ultimately harmed when investors all over the globe invest their funds in more transparent markets.

Here in California we voted _lots_ of harsh penalties for violent and drug-related crimes. Who says we can't do the same for white collar crimes?

Oh wait. That means you and I would have to _do_ something about it. Nevermind.

I've got immunity too!!

[LandruBek]

Speak for yourself -- I wouldn't get touched either, I'm stinking rich!! . . . you insensitive clod!

(heh, jk, no im not)

The Injustice of America

[Anonymous Coward]

Justice Hugo Black once said, "And they who have suffered most from secret and dictatorial proceedings have almost always been the poor, the ignorant, the numerically weak, the friendless, and the powerless." Patricia Dunn does not fit into any of those categories of the downtrodden. Rather, she oppresses the downtrodden.

Not a chance

[HomelessInLaJolla]

It's not really possible for me to feel sorry for a multimillionaire. I really don't care what the ailment is. If they're a multimillionaire they should've known better than to become caught up in illegal activities. If they're dumb enough to be caught, when they had the financial ability to step out and say "I can't agree to this", then they deserve every last hour of punishment we can give them. It's not like she would've become homeless for staying out of the mess to begin with.

Re:Not a chance

[dbIII]

It's not about revenge, it's about protecting society. No legal punishment can trump a slow lingering death by cancer so revenge is irrelevant anyway.

Re:Not a chance

[HomelessInLaJolla]

It's not about revenge, it's about protecting society I'm still waiting to be financially protected from the 278 Enron executives who never saw the inside of a courtroom--and who still know how to use priveleged positions to milk profit from 401(k) and other pension plans and leave the rest of us in debt. How are we being protected from executives like Hurd and Dunn from continuing to abuse their position within major corporations?

Re:Not a chance

[dbIII]

I'm still waiting to be financially protected from the 278 Enron executives

I think that is completely different and involves political corruption.

Fakes

[BillGatesLoveChild]

> The Enron guy got to fake his death and walk away with gazillions.

Ok, Ok, You made your point. Where should I send the money?

Re:Fakes

[Rockin'Robert]

Correct! Ken Ley and T. McVeigh are hanging out together, in Montana, probably in the Federal Witless Protection Program.

The Problem with Lawyers

[BillGatesLoveChild]

You can shop around until you find one to tell you what you want to hear.

They will cluck when you are caught, then offer to defend you.

Then offer to defend you on appeal.

Reduced charges

[Anonymous Coward]

FTA
The court dismissed Dunn's charge Wednesday because of her cancer battle, according to the attorney general's office. The dismissal came "not because she's innocent but because she is sick," attorney general's spokesman Barankin told CNN.

Sorry, this is a crock of fudge.

Hypocrisy at its finest

[bigbadbuccidaddy]

Someone who commits a real crime gets off scott free due to illness, whereas,
on the same day,
in the same state,
this http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics& id=5122773 dying woman is loses her appeal,
and is sent to prison for smoking dope.

Re:Hypocrisy at its finest

[owlstead]

I've read the article you pointed to, and it is made pretty clear she has not been prosecuted, arrested or imprissoned. She may not, according to the law, smoke dope legally, but the chances that she will be prosecuted are nill. Even the persons giving her the dope do not seem to have problems continuing to get the *medical* marihuana to her.

In other words, your article purposefully mangles the fact and should be modded as troll. Currently I can only mod you one down, but I hope this response will get the article the 0 troll rating it deserves. No one doubts that there is a lot of hypocrasy in the US, but this does not seem to be a good example of that fact.

Lies, Stalling, and Corruption WORKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

This only goes to show that lies, stalling and corruption works.

A Note on Living longer or Shorter Than the Crime

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of Judicial Record, the life expectincy of the accused should never be taken into account as that is just an expecation based on an estimate that can often and is be wildy inaccurate.

My recommendation is to send them all to Hell ... and be done with it ... otherwise, you will never hear the end of it, from those who have been violated.

Toodles

Wrist slap.

[liftphreaker]

What garbage. We all know what would have happened if you or I had done what the Dunn woman did. Locked up for years without hope.

The Illness Excuse

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad this unfortunate woman isn't an ex-corporate executive:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/03/14/med.marijuana.ap /index.html

MOD UP!

[Builder]

This shows everything that is wrong with legal systems in the 'free' world.

NO PLEA

[Rockin'Robert]

There is a crucial point here - that everyone seems to have missed (or conveniently ignored?). If you PLEAD: Guilty, not guilty or (no contest) nolo contendere - your 'ship of state' is subject to the jurisdiction of the court. If you refuse to plead anything, the administrative (legal, not lawful) court is exposed as such. In such a case, the judge cannot enter a plea for you, because the judge is NOT your attorney. In a high profile case like this one, NOBODY WANTS TO GO THERE because it reveals the true unlawful nature of the US 'legal' BAR cartel (I.e. - Maritime - administrative) NOT constitutional JUSTICE' system. She was very smart, and refused to plead to anything. Therefore - there was, arguably, no self-confessed 'legal' 'person' present to answer the charge(s). The only option available to the judge would have been to cite her for 'Contempt of (a contemptible) Court - which would have been seen to be cruel. Charges dropped. END OF STORY. Nod. Nod. Wink. Wink. Return snout(s) to trough. --RR

Re:NO PLEA

[Rockin'Robert]

Re:Care to cite a source?(Score:0) by Rockin'Robert (997471) on Thursday March 15, @09:48PM (#18370487) Be well advised that 'in denial' is not a swimming holiday in Egypt. For starters, amongst other sources, the: Inner, Middle and Outer Temples of the Crown's BAR cartel (with the exclusive right to address the 'court' on behalf of 'clients') are located in London. These 'temples' govern the courts (CPR Civil / Criminal Procedure Rules etc) and 'license' lawyers throught the world. Some lawyers know the score, and some do not. The ones that rock the boat lose their BAR cards. HOW THE CROWN RULES THE WORLD:- There are two Crowns operant in the United Kingdom, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Extremely wealthy,the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention from the other Crown,which issues her marching orders through their control of Parliament. This other Crown is a committee of 12 banks,headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre,independent sovereign state called The City of London ('The City.')Lady Rothschild quote: "If my sons do not want war, there will be no war." http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/how-the- crown-rules-the-world [theunivers...uction.com] Fed up with being lied to by politicians and the media? Concerned about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Ashamed that war crimes are being committed in your name? Not convinced that you have been told the truth about 9/11?Join Total 9/11 Truth http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Total911TruthNOW/ [yahoo.com] Subscribe by sending an "empty"email to: Total911TruthNOW-subscribe@yahoogroups.com Check it out. Admiralty Law. Maritime Law. --RR

A pity.

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

Care to cite a source?

[walterbyrd]

No offense, but I don't think you know what you're posting about. Are you a lawyer? If not, would you please explain where get these bizzaro world laws from?

Re:Care to cite a source?

[Rockin'Robert]

Be well advised that 'in denial' is not a swimming holiday in Egypt.

For starters, amongst other sources, the:
Inner, Middle and Outer Temples of the Crown's BAR cartel (with the exclusive right to address the 'court' on behalf of 'clients') are located in London. These 'temples' govern the courts (CPR Civil / Criminal Procedure Rules etc) and 'license' lawyers throught the world. Some lawyers know the score, and some do not. The ones that rock the boat lose their BAR cards.

HOW THE CROWN RULES THE WORLD:-
There are two Crowns operant in the United Kingdom, one being Queen Elizabeth II. Extremely wealthy,the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention from the other Crown,which issues her marching orders through their control of Parliament. This
other Crown is a committee of 12 banks,headed by the Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the 677-acre,independent sovereign state called The City of London ('The City.')Lady Rothschild quote: "If my sons do not want war, there will be no war."
http://theuniversalseduction.com/articles/how-the- crown-rules-the-world
Fed up with being lied to by politicians and the media? Concerned about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Ashamed that war crimes are being committed in your name? Not convinced that you have been told the truth about 9/11?Join Total 9/11 Truth
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Total911TruthNOW/
Subscribe by sending an "empty"email to:
Total911TruthNOW-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Check it out. Admiralty Law. Maritime Law.

--RR

Lesson learned.

[neo]

If you're guilty, but also have an life threatening illness then a judge can decide god has already punished you enough. No need for the legal system to do anything. Move along. You don't even have to plead guilty for your crimes.

On the other hand, if you're guilty and have a really good lawyer, money, and run a large company you don't even need to be ill.

Re:Lesson learned.

[Rockin'Robert]

As it happens, she had: money for excellent counsel, severe illness, and symapthy. Not pleading to anything was the trump card. Both sides decided to 'drop hands and walk away'.

Hehe

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I've never seen details on what the leaks were or whether they were good or bad for the company and whether they were good or bad for the shareholders. Without that information, it's hard to understand how the defrauding took place and how extensive it was When you ask someone,"How bad is it?" and they just give you that look and shake their head while keeping their lips closed, do you need to be told any more? Part of growing up is learning that "as bad as it can possibly be" has no limit.

Re: That's hardly an answer

[matthewd]

When you ask someone,"How bad is it?" and they just give you that look and shake their head while keeping their lips closed, do you need to be told any more? Part of growing up is learning that "as bad as it can possibly be" has no limit.

I don't even know what to make of that answer, other than you also have no idea what was leaked and why, or you actually know and for some reason are unable to say what it is.

I can see a few scenarios.

Keyworth was leaking information in effort to win an internal power play with the BoD or senior management. Dunn was fighting back, sloppily, and got caught.

Keyworth was leaking information detrimental to HP. Dunn was trying to prevent these leaks (thereby protecting shareholder value)

Keyworth was leaking information that should have legitimately been shared with stockholders, i.e. something the BoD or senior management was or was not doing that would be detrimental to the company (and therefore shareholder value). Dunn was trying to prevent these leaks because they made her/management/BoD look bad.

I'm just guessing here. "As bad as it could possibly be" can't be the basis of an indictment, much less a conviction. If Dunn really was defrauding shareholders, specific information should be available to support that assertion.

Re: That's hardly an answer

[HomelessInLaJolla]

I'm just guessing here The point is that "why were people leaking info, what was being leaked, and what impact did it have on a multibillion dollar international company" is the most obvious question for the whole situation. The very fact that it's being carefully avoided in the media releases points to "as bad as it can be".

If Dunn really was defrauding shareholders In today's world the question is no longer "if"--it's inherent. The question is "how much", "who do we bust today", and, if we're busting someone today, "who takes the fall" (eg. Martha Stewart, Lay and Skilling).