Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Untitled topic

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#41

Post by rhizome »

benatkin wrote: post #12
btilly wrote: post #3

Linus is dead wrong on this. We have independent confirmation of everything that Ortiz said from the Boston Globe's interview with Aaron's defense attorney. The maximum statutory penalty for the original 4 indictments was 35 years. The prosecutor was planning to seek 6-7 years. There were two plea bargains offered, one was 4 months and no disputing the period, the other was 6 months but the defense attorney would be…

The main reason he's wrong is because she used lawyer speak. She said something that was misleading but technically true. She said that they didn't seek maximum penalties. What she must want people to think when they read it is that she didn't seek harsh penalties, which she did by increasing the number of counts. But since she didn't say this, it isn't technically false.

And when you have a situation like that where neither is "technically false," it's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth." However, besides the point, is "misleading the public and the defendant" a professional standard for federal prosecutors?

In addition to repealing the CFAA, I'd like to see some hard character standards imposed for government prosecutors, some legal requirements and tests imposed on Bar Associations for the benefit of the public against and for whom they serve. We can call it "Carmen's Law."

Re: undefined

#42

Post by BrokenPipe »

In my view, just because 'usually' they don't seek maximum penalty it doesn't mean he doesn't get it, as suggested itself by her office the final call is not hers.

I'm glad more and more people are coming out on this issue.

Re: undefined

#43

Post by jacquesm »

chmike wrote: post #36

This sounds indeed defamatory and Linus was once again too impulsive. Not sure if the target will be as complaisant as his other victims. However the situation is indeed very shocking and Carmen Oritz's public reaction is also in my view extremely disappointing and shocking. Apparently all this was an attempt to use a "big mistake" [1] of Aaron as a leverage for her self promotion with political goals and it backfire…

I think Ortiz is painfully aware that any words she says will be parsed extremely carefully and that if she so much as leaves a tiny surface with grip on it that surface will be eventually found and used to hit her as hard as the situation allows. Any admission, any implicit acceptance of responsibility, even a moral one could come back to haunt her in a possible civil suit. She's already fighting that battle today, even though the first shot may never be fired. To do otherwise would be morally honorable but from a legal point extremely bad strategy.

This is the world we have all crafted and Ortiz is still in gameplay mode. If she could accept her own responsibility in this she'd likely never have made it to the position she is in, weaseling through cracks to avoid culpability is second nature in politics.

Re: undefined

#44

Post by lifeisstillgood »

Removing / blaming one person without reforming the system is called a "purge" as in Stalinist Purge

Please fix the system not the blame

Suggestion: are plea bargains public record? If so can we parse and publicise them? Would it be interesting to know the ratio of years charged vs years pleaded - especially by race and offence and state?

Edit: no not trying to compare this in degree with marching thousands to death in gulags - just we should focus on fixing a justice system that basically tries to avoid the courts because of those awkward and time consuming human rights. I mean imagine if we had to deal with terrorists instead of copyright violators - we might skip plea bargaining and do something silly in Cuba. Luckily the rights of the individual are paramount in the worlds greatest democracy - otherwise we could all be in trouble

Re: undefined

#45

Post by downandout »

gojomo wrote: post #35
downandout wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linus isn't wrong. She made two directly conflicting statements in press releases, which is what he pointed out. The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. They make statements like this in order to foster plea discussions, which resulted in the 4-6 month offer she mentioned in the second statement. While this would be considered extortion in any other…

In the weaselly shades of English used by lawyers and politicians, the two statements highlighted by Torvalds do not necessarily contradict one another. The older statement accurately describes the maximums the law allows, and was used when that was the emphasis. (At the time, the DoJ probably didn't know themselves what sort of sentence they'd ask for, so the only informative and unfalsifiable thing to put in a PR s…

I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years".

She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would agree with Linus's interpretation of the two statements.

Re: undefined

#46

Post by jacquesm »

rhizome wrote: post #41
benatkin wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main reason he's wrong is because she used lawyer speak. She said something that was misleading but technically true. She said that they didn't seek maximum penalties. What she must want people to think when they read it is that she didn't seek harsh penalties, which she did by increasing the number of counts. But since she didn't say this, it isn't technically false.

And when you have a situation like that where neither is "technically false," it's called "talking out of both sides of your mouth." However, besides the point, is "misleading the public and the defendant" a professional standard for federal prosecutors? In addition to repealing the CFAA, I'd like to see some hard character standards imposed for government prosecutors, some legal requirements and tests imposed on Bar…

> However, besides the point, is "misleading the public and the defendant" a professional standard for federal prosecutors?

I think this strategy is par for the course because it generates a situation the prosecutors control, similar to the anchoring strategy used during business negotiations. You've just undermined the position of the defendant at no cost to yourself. As long as prosecutors careers do not depend on justice but on cases won this will likely continue or even get worse.

Re: undefined

#47

Post by jahewson »

__alexs wrote: post #6
anigbrowl wrote: post #2

Well, he's wrong about this. Quoting the maximum statutory penalty is the standard in news releases, but tells you exactly zero about the negotiations in attorney conferences. US attorneys don't write the press releases, those are done by the most junior lawyers and quote the statutory maximum because it's factual without giving anything away about the government's courtroom strategy.

What if there was no mention of the penalty they were seeking in negotiations or it was left highly ambiguous? In that situation I could see a public press release announcing that you might face 35 years in prison as quite threatening.

What makes you think they had a plea bargain agreement to announce at that early stage? Issuing a public statement before an agreement is reached doesn't help anyone.

Re: undefined

#48

Post by FSEA »

fleitz wrote: post #22
pbreit wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"she approved it, and therefore she said it" Are either of those clauses accurate?

Depends on what the context is... In an affadavit... yes...? In an election... maybe? As a press release from a prosecutors office? Probably not. Either you like Mrs. Ortiz or not, no one is really going to make their decision based on whether or not Aaron Schwartz believed he was facing 6 years, or 35 years. He was looking at 6 months tops, which means serving 2 tops as a first time offender, which means probably ou…

How is it going in fantasy land? Where you make assumptions on top of assumptions then roll with it as your own version of reality?

Re: undefined

#49

Post by thetruthNow »

I tracked down Carmen Ortiz's personal information online. I'm sure she would love to hear from Us, The People who she represents, directly.

Name: Carmen Milagros Ortiz DOB: 01/05/1956 Address: 20 Herrick Dr, Milton, MA

This is how I found her info:

1. This article mentions that she's from Milton, MA: http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x655689172/Q-A-New-US-Atto...

2. Carmen Ortiz is married to Thomas Dolan according to Wikipedia and many news articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Dolan

3. If you search for her husband's name (Thomas Dolan) in Milton, MA on 411.com, you get the address 20 Herrick Dr: http://www.411.com/name/Thomas-J-Dolan/Milton-MA/2qgvqgn

4. Looking up 20 Herrick Dr, it looks like a nice house with a pool in a fancy neighborhood. Thomas Dolan is an IBM executive.

5. If you Google for: carmen ortiz "20 Herrick Dr" then you'll see a snapshot of a website on indybay.org, which has since been taken down for violating their terms of use. But in the snapshot provided by Google you can see the text "Carmen Ortiz contact. Name: Carmen Milagros Ortiz DOB: 01/05/1956. Address: 20 Herrick Dr Milton, MA", and Google shows this snapshot as dated Jan 17th, shortly after the Aaron Swartz controversy erupted.

6. If you then look up "20 Herrick Dr" on Yellowpages.com: http://anywhoyp.yellowpages.com/whitepages/address?from=AnyW... you will get a result that says:

Carmen M Ortiz, 20 Herrick Dr, Milton, MA 02186 617-698-1615

Bingo. That's her phone number. But it has been disconnected. Let's find her new number, or her cell phone number. Post it here if you can find it.

Re: undefined

#50

Post by kelnos »

downandout wrote: post #45
gojomo wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the weaselly shades of English used by lawyers and politicians, the two statements highlighted by Torvalds do not necessarily contradict one another. The older statement accurately describes the maximums the law allows, and was used when that was the emphasis. (At the time, the DoJ probably didn't know themselves what sort of sentence they'd ask for, so the only informative and unfalsifiable thing to put in a PR s…

I expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years". Even as plea negotiations went forward, the implication was "plead this out or you will get 35 years". She made statements that only a lawyer could love - rife with plausible deniability for any responsibility they have in this mess. However, I think any reasonable person would…

I consider myself a reasonable person and do not agree with Linus's interpretation.
Post reply on HN