“Except that four of the five grants were federal grants, over which Cuccinelli has no jurisdiction.”

I believe I’ve already said that, on a previous occasion.

“The problem is that this particular investigation isn’t going to get to the bottom of those, because it’s out of the AG’s jurisdiction, and courts of law aren’t generally equipped to decide such matters anyway.”

LRU,

You’re welcome.

Ah, how interesting! Thank you for for finding BURDEAU v. MCDOWELL, 256 U.S. 465 (1921). It appears I agree with Justices Brandeis and Holmes but not the the majority. I find the ruling counter-intuitive to say the least.

As for my comment about the climategate e-mails being unlawfully obtained, I based my information from news sources and from the filing. I was not aware this was a point of contention. Thank you for informing me otherwise.

I appreciate your assistance in helping me clear my confusion. I’ll be following trends in law and technology very closely. If Pandora’s box is already open, I’m keen to see how it develops and how it will be challenged in the future. I think privacy and information will be hotly contested issues in the near future.

“it is part of an investigation to find out whether a crime has taken place.”

Except that four of the five grants were federal grants, over which Cuccinelli has no jurisdiction. The one state grant was in 2001, which was before the statute that Cuccinelli is abusing was on the books.

Furthermore, UVa says that Cuccinelli has failed to spell out the nature of the alleged conduct–something that the law requires him to do. Certainly the CID has nothing about this and, if he’s spelled out this information anywhere else, I can’t find it.

This is political grandstanding, pure and simple. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it.

“It is clear, however, these e-mails were wrongfully and illegally stolen.”

The British police have stated that they do not yet know whether they were stolen or not, and have generally refused to comment on that. One theory is that they were compiled in response to a FOIA request, and then when the university decided not to comply, they were leaked by an insider. The investigation continues.

“Are illegally obtained hacked e-mails considered legitimate enough to base a CID on? I’m inclined to think they would fall under evidentiary exclusionary rules, so I’m a little confused.”

Illegally obtained material is only inadmissible in court if it was government officials who committed the crime to obtain the evidence. Here’s a link to the relevant case law.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=256&invol=465

However, the CID is not prosecution for a crime, it is part of an investigation to find out whether a crime has taken place. The requirement is only that the AG must have “reasonable grounds to believe”, which is less than probable cause, and does not have to consist of prosecution-quality evidence.

There are analogies to other situations, such as plea bargaining, police informants, and forensics where examination of the consequences of crimes are admissible as evidence. It’s only crimes by law enforcement to obtain the evidence that are excluded. Pandora’s box was opened many years ago.

I’m a little confused on the law and technology aspect of the CID and how it is referred to in the filing. I’m hoping someone could point me in the right direction for answers.

It appears the ‘climategate’ e-mails were cited as the basis for the CID. It is clear, however, these e-mails were wrongfully and illegally stolen. So, I’m wondering:

1) Are illegally obtained hacked e-mails considered legitimate enough to base a CID on? I’m inclined to think they would fall under evidentiary exclusionary rules, so I’m a little confused.

2) Also, if case law does not support the use of hacked evidence, are the evidentiary standards for CIDs lower than those for ordinary cases?

I’m just a touch worried about the implications are with regards to privacy for corporate entities, and more importantly, for individuals. If courts begin to legitimize and accept stolen information, it would open the door to hacking as legitimate enterprises and this could seriously move issues of privacy in a really ugly direction. This case especially troubles me because a governmental agency seems to be leading the charge towards legitimizing illegal behaviors. I just hope this case doesn’t open a Pandora’s box.

NPR All things considered:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127244613

NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/education/28brfs-UNIVERSITYOB_BRF.html

Washington Post story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052705374.html
and editorial:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804517.html

But I would at least like others to know that I’m not allowed to reply.