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

61–70 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#61

Post by jacquesm »

rhizome wrote: post #57
jacquesm wrote: post #7

Until Aarons' lawyer speaks up with evidence to the contrary Carmen Ortiz statement stands unchallenged. Much as I would like her to carry (or at least acknowledge) some actual responsibility for what she has helped causing there is a lot of room for interpretation here and saying 'she lied' in a legal sense is premature and may end up to be simply untrue. Linus is a very clever guy but he's dead wrong about this. I'…

We aren't lawyers, we can call her a liar if she appears to be one, especially if "there's a lot of room for interpretation." It's a huge joke that we're debating whether "the lawyer says they're not lying" is a good argument. What's problematic for her is that "the ecosystem she's operating in" aren't the only forces at work. Maybe she thought the age-old mechanism of press releases and who-gives-a-shit-what-lawyers…

> Lawyers can't force us to operate in their ecosystem

Unfortunately we are doing exactly that. All of us are operating in an ecosystem crafted by lawyers. And so when we run into the boundaries set we will find lawyers or legally schooled people on all three sides of the table, the prosecution, our defense counsel and the judge.

They use our language but in a way that appears twisted and dishonest to laypeople. We pay - with huge sums of money and with time served - for the privilege.

Ortiz is using her position as a stepping stone to further her career. Aaron was to her a conveniently placed cobblestone that she could put her spiked heel on to make it to the next level. I'm pretty sure she regrets this, but only because it damaged her career chances.

I certainly wished that justice would be more about what's really best for society instead of about protecting special interest and selective prosecution but this is something that I did not need the Aaron Swartz case for to become aware of.

Re: undefined

#62

Post by jacquesm »

thetruthNow wrote: post #49

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…

This is not helping.

Re: undefined

#64

Post by paulsutter »

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…

If Linus said her statements were _false_, he'd probably be wrong. Both statements appear carefully crafted.

If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct. Each statement exaggerates to suit the purposes of the context.

But Linus said she lied. If you define lying as deliberate deception, he was right. If you think a lie must also be false, you can accuse him of sloppy English. But Linus is only "dead wrong" if you think deliberate deceptions can be perfectly ethical.

Personally I wish Linus would slightly reword his post so that it doesn't confuse people who get hung up on semantics instead of his central point.

Re: undefined

#65

Post by DanBC2 »

stef25 wrote: post #56
downandout wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America. He was an extremely talented rich white kid, associated with a top university who would have had dozens of high profiles vouching for him in court. I guess his lawyer did a terrible job of telling him not to worry.

> It was not at all realistic to think a 35 year sentence would have been handed down for downloading scientific papers, even in America.

It's easier to say this when you're not facing prison and financial ruin.

He wasn't being charged with "downloading papers". He was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, criminal damage, etc.

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jul/21/aaron-swart...)

> US attorney Carmen Ortiz said: "Stealing is stealing, whether you use a computer command or a crowbar, and whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away."

> If convicted Swartz faces maximum jail terms of 35 years and possible fines of up to $1m. Swartz appeared in court on Wednesday and was released on bail of $100,000.

And it'd mind-boggling that we're talking whether 35 years is realistic or not; the fact that prison is considered a suitable punishment for the alleged crime is a disgrace, and something that shames America.

Re: undefined

#66

Post by DanBC2 »

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…

Have you spent any time in prison? Have you visited anyone in any prison? Which federal prison do you suppose Mr Swartz would have been sent to if he had been convicted?

Re: undefined

#67

Post by jacquesm »

logn wrote: post #59
ck2 wrote: post #52

I don't understand why people don't get the LAW should have been on trial, not Aaron's actions. Aaron was an activist. He purpose broke what he considered unfair laws and tried to set free information he thought should be free (or was technically free in the first place). I think he committed suicide because he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged. I wish he would have waited a little longer and had a lit…

> "I think he committed suicide because he thought he was going to be Bradley Manning-inged. I wish he would have waited a little longer and had a little more hope but it's easy to be cool and logical from a comfy chair, meanwhile his mind was facing darkness." Both agreeing and disagreeing here... I don't get how everyone assumes that Aaron was making a logical decision when he killed himself. It's very possible he…

> It's very possible he was depressed and wasn't thinking clearly at all.

I'd take that as a given.

> It's also very possible that this trial made him depressed.

I think to think otherwise would be to ignore plenty of evidence to the contrary.

> But to assume that he was thinking reasonably about the circumstances and decided it was best not to live is a huge assumption. Depression completely warps reality.

Yes. And this is the bit for which Aaron carried some responsibility, if you're prone to depression you should not position yourself in situations where extreme stress and threats to your personal freedom might result. Being a person prone to depression and being an activist that takes very visible steps antagonizing powerful entities is not something that you should want to combine in the same person. That didn't stop Aaron from being who he was though and in some sense he seems to have felt driven to do these things. Note that I say this as a strong supporter of everything that Aaron stood for and fought for.

> Also, I'd like to add that given this, I think we're all being a bit unfair to the prosecutor.

No we're not. She's been using people to further her career. This is disgusting.

> But it's very possible she triggered an underlying mental illness in Aaron.

She pushed him to the brink and then across it. There is no excuse for such behavior.

> Yes, she is partly to blame. But so is everyone else.

This we agree on.

> MIT didn't step up.

They did the opposite, they pushed for punishment including jail time according to most accounts.

> But also his loved ones near him didn't do enough to help.

You know NOTHING about that and should refrain from such comments.

> It's quite simply a tragedy.

No, it is an utter failure of the judicial system.

> Painting Ortiz as a murderer is as wrong a painting Swartz as a felon deserving of a 35 year prison sentence.

Nobody is painting Ortiz as a murderer, and she painted Swartz as a felon deserving of a 35 year prison sentence and now tries to make it seem as if that was just business as usual. This madness should end.

Re: undefined

#68

Post by jacquesm »

paulsutter wrote: post #64
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…

If Linus said her statements were _false_, he'd probably be wrong. Both statements appear carefully crafted. If Linus said she made two _deliberate deceptions_, he'd be absolutely correct. Each statement exaggerates to suit the purposes of the context. But Linus said she lied. If you define lying as deliberate deception, he was right. If you think a lie must also be false, you can accuse him of sloppy English. But Li…

> Personally I wish Linus would slightly reword his post so that it doesn't confuse people who get hung up on semantics instead of his central point.

Yes, that would be for the best because as it is it's not just people who get hung up on semantics that are going to be bothered by this, it will allow opposition to his statements to reject them out of hand as untrue. And that is the bigger worry.

Re: undefined

#69

Post by okamiueru »

thetruthNow wrote: post #49

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…

What do you think this will possibly achieve? How many times has the internet lynch mob been misguided, for you to realize that this is a shitty way to approach matters?

Not only that, but if you want to reiterate Linus' statement (as you seem to be suggesting, to Ortiz herself), at least realize that he made a fool of himself here. The two statements don't contradict themselves, and going from that to a "lie" is counter-productive to the discourse that needs to be held. Suggesting to harass individuals based on flaky grounds (or really, in general), also not productive.

And welcome to HN.

Re: undefined

#70

Post by javert »

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…

As a regular intelligent American person (i.e., not a lawyer), you are correct, and Linus is wrong.

It is just obvious that the first thing she put out was purely legal posturing. They do it all the time. It means nothing.

Post reply on HN