U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
1–10 of 300 posts
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#2So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#3While it is nice that she is passing blame to Congress, if it were only a "6 month low security setting" being discussed, why wouldn't Aaron have been told of this? Why the additional and ultimately 13 felony charges when he was MOST concerned with not being labled a felon. Why hold that 50 year sentence above his head with no HOPE in his own mind because he was left in the dark. "As a parent and sister", would you want your child to be stranded for two years with the full weight of the federal government and their impending punishment upon you hidden behind a dark veil? As a human, I both recognize that she is probably saddened and shocked that he took his life (and probably freaking out bc of the white house petition), but at the same time, it's clear that this shouldn't be allowed to happen, so if it means she loses her job - tough luck.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#4So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?
Could you provide a link to that please?
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#5> and did so reasonably.
They still believe that? Sorry but they're unfit for the job. They need to go. There was nothing reasonable about their actions on this case.
> a sentence that we would recommend to the judge of six months in a low security setting.
Six months in jail for downloading files that were accessible to him? All he did was violate terms of service! Are we going to start arresting under-age Facebook users or gamers that cheat next? Should they get six months too?
This statement is just icing on the cake that proves that Ortiz is inappropriate for that job/role.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#6So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?
Could you provide a link to that please?
> ALLEGED HACKER CHARGED WITH STEALING OVER FOUR MILLION DOCUMENTS FROM MIT NETWORK July 19, 2011
> 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.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR....
Maybe us common folk don't understand that when the Department of Justice says 35 years they don't mean 35 years? Do the defendants in these cases understand how many years they are actually being expected to serve?
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#7> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case.
That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection.
Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say.
"The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his acts for personal financial gain, 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."
Is in direct conflict with Aaron's lawyer's account of the run up to last Saturday as well as other statements issued earlier, she may come to regret those words if he has documentation to prove his side of the story.
Aaron's lawyer claims they were threatening just the opposite if he did not take a guilty plea.
In particular:
"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.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#8So how does this mesh with the doj-issued press release stating the 35 year term?
Could you provide a link to that please?
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.
We can compare this to United States Attorney Carmen Ortiz, who, facing the ruination of her career over her actions, says in this new announcement on Wednesday, "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." This new statement does not align with the documented history of statements made by the DOJ as evidenced in the above link. Perhaps though she is trying to argue that she, as the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts, is somehow not part of the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts that issued the press release which says "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". This would be a difficult argument to make given that the press release itself specifically names U.S. Attorney Ortiz as the person who made the press announcement.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#9> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…
"...did not warrant the severe punishments authorized by Congress and called for by the Sentencing Guidelines in appropriate cases."
Scapegoating Congress now, she is truly shameless in invoking the Nuremberg Defense.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#10> I must, however, make clear that this office’s conduct was appropriate in bringing and handling this case. That's why you assign investigations to independent entities, and that's why butchers aren't allowed to do their own health inspection. Whether it was appropriate or not is not for Carmen Ortiz to say. "The prosecutors recognized that there was no evidence against Mr. Swartz indicating that he committed his ac…
She can be technically telling the truth if the maximum penalty was 50 years (based on maximum possible value of damage), and they were only seeking 7 years.