<?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/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Using NSA spy data to go after&#8230;FCPA violators?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/08/using-nsa-spy-data-go-after-fcpa-violators/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/08/using-nsa-spy-data-go-after-fcpa-violators/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:08:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: No Name Guy		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2013/08/using-nsa-spy-data-go-after-fcpa-violators/comment-page-1/#comment-233831</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[No Name Guy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Aug 2013 19:08:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=40477#comment-233831</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This certainly brings up an obvious defense for anyone prosecuted by Federal authorities.  &quot;Your Honor, the Government is withholding possibly exculpatory evidence.  The prosecutor / investigators are forbidden from being 100% truthful about where this investigation started and what evidence they claim to have.  What ELSE are they being untruthful about?&quot;  etc etc etc....   I think this is reasonable doubt for a lot of drug and white collar crime prosecutions.  How much, for example, was gleaned for Martha Stewart&#039;s insider case?  How about the recent indictment of SAC Capital?  My goodness, I can hear the defense already........]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This certainly brings up an obvious defense for anyone prosecuted by Federal authorities.  &#8220;Your Honor, the Government is withholding possibly exculpatory evidence.  The prosecutor / investigators are forbidden from being 100% truthful about where this investigation started and what evidence they claim to have.  What ELSE are they being untruthful about?&#8221;  etc etc etc&#8230;.   I think this is reasonable doubt for a lot of drug and white collar crime prosecutions.  How much, for example, was gleaned for Martha Stewart&#8217;s insider case?  How about the recent indictment of SAC Capital?  My goodness, I can hear the defense already&#8230;&#8230;..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
