U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case

> "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law."

> Is a falsifiable claim. I'm looking forward to Aaron's lawyers' response to this statement.

I agree with previous posts on the matter, which argued that the system of insane maximum penalties + plea bargaining is the modern, "civilized" version of inquisition, i.e. producing guilty pleas under the prospect of torture.

If you translate Carmen Ortiz' statement to "At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – to break the defendant's kneecaps" (translation, not equation!), you may get a better idea of why her claim may be absolutely accurate, and still entirely missing the point.

>Ortiz framed a brilliant, selfless young man as a criminal who should be locked up behind bars.

Law is about drama? There's plenty of drama and hyperbole in your post. He broke the law. Which means he is a criminal.

If you think the laws are retarded, then how you protest that is your prerogative. If you choose to protest by blatantly and purposely breaking the law, unless you are 99.999% certain that an obvious interpretation of the law violates the constitution, you should expect to get charged and convicted of breaking said law.

Prosecutors aren't hired to be nice, they are hired to represent the state and bring charges against people who violate the state's laws. If you seriously think that he shouldn't be charged with breaking the law because 'he didn't deserve it', 'he did not have malicious intentions' or 'the law is dumb', then by extension no one should be convicted of any crime, because there will always be some point of view where you could think that of anyone.

Of course they will threaten him with it but did he really think, or did his lawyers really tell him he would serve long years of hard time?

I wonder if he ever considered the fact that even if he did serve time, he would always be seen as some kind of folk hero who would have been welcomed with open arms by all his peers upon release. It would have been a situation of him, all his peers and everyone he respects against the system, which imho is not that bad a situation. Still a much better situation than for example the one Assange find himself in.

EDIT: found the second article, comment redundant.

Ortiz today:

  and they recognized that his conduct – while a violation of 
  the law – did not warrant the severe punishments authorized 
  by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in 
  appropriate cases. 

Ortiz on 9/2012, adding 9 counts to the conduct that we learn "did not warrant...severe punishment":

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony...

  Federal prosectors added nine new felony counts against 
  well-known coder and activist Aaron Swartz, who was charged 
  last year for allegedly breaching hacking laws by 
  downloading millions of academic articles from a 
  subscription database via an open connection at MIT.

Ortiz today:

  Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the 
  judge. At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell 
  Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum 
  penalties under the law.

And here is Ortiz in her own press release telling the entire world the DOJ is threatening Swartz with a maximum penalty of 35 years and $1M in fines:

http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....

  AARON SWARTZ, 24, was charged in an indictment with wire 
  fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information 
  from a protected computer, and recklessly damaging a 
  protected computer. If convicted on these charges, SWARTZ 
  faces up to 35 years in prison, to be followed by three 
  years of supervised release, restitution, forfeiture and a 
  fine of up to $1 million. 

It is completely disingenuous for Ortiz to maintain that 35 years/$1M wasn't the threat on the table, that we are rubes for thinking that this sticker price was material. That sticker price is exactly what gave her leverage over Swartz, leverage to make 6 months in federal prison and felon status (not to mention legal bankruptcy) seem reasonable by comparison!

  Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the 
  judge.

Exactly, and this is why this random variable was so intimidating. Do you take a guarantee of 6 months in federal prison and permanent felon status? Or a risk of 7 years, or up to 35 years, plus total bankruptcy if you really try to fight?

"Ultimately any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge" and had the judge thrown the book at him Ortiz & Heymann would have washed their hands: "Oh well, maybe the judge shouldn't have given him 8 years rather than 3, but that's what he gets for not plea bargaining." This of course disavows Ortiz's and Heymann's own complicity in drumming up PDF downloading into a federal case.

This woman really feels like her office's actions were justified, and that's the scary part. You get a sense of what Aaron was up against. She needs to feel what it's like to be in a no-win situation herself, with the choice being resignation or getting fired. That is only way that prosecutors across the land will get the message: that this was wrong.