Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#141

Post by cognivore » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:53 PM UTC

okamiueru wrote: post #69

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 cou…

>> What do you think this will possibly achieve? I'll put myself in Ortiz's shoes.

I've just pursued a federal case in which the invested parties no longer are interested in continuing. I do it with a fervor that is unwarranted compared to the severity violation. The accused kills himself out of what appears to be fear.

Then a shit-storm happens. My information is everywhere. I'm having to change everything online because it's under constant attack. Forget about the phone, it's only really good for outgoing calls now. I can't do my job as effectively anymore because I'm harried by an online wolf-pack.

I'm not saying that's bad or that's good, I'm saying, that's what it's intended to achieve and that's a possibly what Ortiz is experiencing now.

My personal opinion is maybe that's not so bad. I would hope that it could serve as a warning to the people who decide to become part of the federal government that should they approach they're duties with a large large dose of humanity. They're people, we're people, and careless anti-social behavior should be met with vehement condemnation by the populace.

Re: undefined

#142

Post by mpyne » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:54 PM UTC

mverwijs wrote: post #108

bambax wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even outside of legalese, words have meaning. Saying in a press release that Mr. Swartz "faces up to 35 years in prison" is not the same as actively seeking the maximum penalty. It's likely that the original press release was meant to add credibility to the prosecution, in the eyes of the general public -- to highlight that, in view of the law, what the defendant was charged with was no small matter. I really don't s…

"Yes, that's a wonderful family you have there. Shame if anything, you know, were to happen to it." That is how this whole wording of 2011 comes across to me.

That might be true if it wasn't for the fact that every. single. set. of charges files gets a similarly-worded press release. "So and so was charged with violations of foo, bar, and baz today, if convicted on these charges he faces a fine of up to $X00,000 and Y years in prison".

Re: undefined

#143

Post by Xylakant » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:55 PM UTC

pacala wrote: post #104

Xylakant wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not expect a prosecutor to talk about the sentence she seeks before the actual court hearing. And we don't know at all what was discussed in the plea bargainings. So no - no lie. Not here. Coming from a different legal system (germany) I find the way prosecution and plea bargaining works in the states scary, but calling the prosecutor a liar when she works in the common framework is not helpful. It just under…

The core issue is that the system relies on bargaining instead of truth. But we can't make judgements of the system in abstract. The system is the sum of the actions of its participants. In that sense, it is perfectly fine to call out individual actions "lies", even if they perfectly fit the system. That only illustrates the absurdity of the system. Back to the facts: Carmen Ortiz (participant in the system) placed a…

Back to the facts: Carmen Ortiz thought she could make multiple counts of wire fraud, unauthorized access to computer systems and some other charges stick. Each of those charges carries by law a maximum sentence. The 35 years that get handed around is the sum of all those maximum sentences. I so far haven't seen a public statement that says "I, Carmen Ortiz think that the appropriate sentence for the case at hand is 35 years." There is no contradiction here.

Re: undefined

#144

Post by anonymouz » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

arthurrr wrote: post #102

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…

Linus is not dead wrong. This should not be reduced to simple binary. To argue whether or not Linus is technically right or wrong seems pointless to me. Tangentially, it really bothers me that there is even such a job as Government Prosecutor. Government should not have a self-interest. The system really is fubar, the only solution is probably 'rm -rf /'. At some point in Carmen Ortiz's life, she decided to devote he…

> Tangentially, it really bothers me that there is even such a job as Government Prosecutor.

Ignoring the personal attacks and hyperbole in your post: In a system without government prosecutors who do you think should prosecute for crimes? Should a murder victims family have to hire a private attorney to file a civil lawsuit? If they can't afford it, will the murderer go free? Please think your argument through to the end before taking cheap shots against the government in general.

Re: undefined

#145

Post by mpyne » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:56 PM UTC

sociotech wrote: post #122

Google: site: http://www.justice.gov "if convicted, * faces" 57,700 results. There are many things to criticize about the universe, but the standard form language on US Attorneys' press releases is probably not the biggest thing we should be worried about. Linus, as he often does, is speaking too confidently and too hastily. And the press releases always state the statutory maximum, which as I and many others have ex…

Dr. Lessig knew it too. In fact he knew that Aaron had been offered a plea, and knew that the jail time must not have been too extensive because he knew that the reason Aaron would not take the deal is that it would involve pleading guilty to a felony.

I don't want to accuse Dr. Lessig of bad PR though, as much as using the same wording the prosecution uses (although it's no secret how Dr. Lessig feels about this case).

Re: undefined

#146

Post by mpyne » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:59 PM UTC

shail wrote: post #120

I really do not understand why people are trying to look at smaller issues such as who is right or wrong, whether she went back or not, whether its normal to follow such practices to extort plea etc. I do not think (correct me if I am wrong) the laws ever say that lawyers have the permission to extort pleas even though that's what is going on everywhere. And if as an appointed office holder and given such responsibil…

The alternative to plea bargaining is generally that everyone convicted gets sentences in line with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. No one ever seems to believe this but the intention is for there to be a better result for both sides.

I'll admit that dropping the option of plea bargains would less to lower conviction rates (though this is not necessarily a good thing, depending on your mindset). However should Aaron's case have gone to trial it's very likely IMO that it would have lead to a conviction and you really would be talking about anywhere between 1-7 years in prison instead of 4-8 months. That sword cuts both ways.

Re: undefined

#147

Post by tveita » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 2:59 PM UTC

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 expect that any criminal defendant, including Aaron, would read her initial statement as "they're going to put me in prison for 35 years".

Absolutely not. I've been shocked to see how many geeks - including Linus, do not seem to understand the concept of maximum penalties. This is not an obscure lawyer technicality, this something you see in the papers every day. Journalists like to quote the "up to" numbers because they sound dramatic, and as a functioning member of society you need to know what that means and doesn't mean.

Maximum penalties set an upper bound on sentencing based on the crimes you are charged with, to prevent abuses. The high maximum penalties in this case probably means the laws are overly broad, but say very little about what the actual sentence will be. Moreover, I do not think the items he was charged have a minimum sentence - he could have been found guilty, and still gotten off with a slap on the wrist.

Re: undefined

#148

Post by lux » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 3:00 PM UTC

Anyone saying he's wrong about the intent and effect of the press release statement, do you think reading a statement like that about yourself isn't going to influence your thinking? Their press releases were intended to drum up public support and paint him in a certain light. That most definitely has an effect on a defendant, and it is most certainly intentional. Linus is right.

Further, when you're in the wrong (even partly), the only appropriate thing to do is to apologize. Not defend or justify or half-apologize with an explanation to try to gain sympathy, but to man up and say you're sorry. Anything less from this prosecution team is pathetic and sickening.

Re: undefined

#149

Post by roc » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 3:01 PM UTC

zokier wrote: post #60

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…

> The first, which she made at the outset of the case, was that he was facing 35 years if convicted at trial. No, that was not what she said. She said that he could be facing up to 35 years. In other words 35 years would be the maximum penalty. There is no implication that she was seeking the maximum penalty at any time.

She identified the maximum the same way a protection racket says "It'd be a shame if anything happened to this nice business you've got here".

They never actually say they're going to make 'something' happen if you don't deal. But everyone knows that is exactly what they mean.

It's no different for the prosecutors. Stating the maximums in a case that clearly does not compel the maximums is an intentional negotiating tactic that amounts to intimidation. It quite clearly and obviously means "I will use the threat of the worst-case-scenario, in negotiations, to wring every last month of term and dollar of penalty out of you." And that implicitly indicates the prosecutors were gunning for Swartz.

Re: undefined

#150

Post by baak » Fri, Jan 18, 2013, 3:03 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #130

baak wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...?

> Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? There were a bunch of pharmaceutical cases where Ortiz used her discretion in favor of the defendants. > Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? Perhaps. > I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...? Notice the…

Which pharma cases?

I noticed the if. It's still a rather bold statement.

"Soandso is an idiot." "Do you have any proof?" "If they think this, then they're an idiot. Have you provided evidence to the contrary?"

It's like saying Stephen Hawking is an idiot if he thinks the holocaust never happened. Can you provide me with evidence that Stephen Hawking thinks the holocaust happened? Is it really okay to call someone an idiot on a conditional if you have zero proof?