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

My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

quinnnorton.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#11

Post by gyardley »

guessWhy wrote: post #9
Bud wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read that entire indictment. I do not find the quote about Norton that you just posted anywhere in the document. There is, in fact, no mention of Norton whatsoever. Do you have some other source for that quote? Because it very much appears that you just created a throwaway account to post this.

I don't really understand the quote. What does it mean/imply?

It would imply that she was called in front of a grand jury to testify against Aaron Swartz. I presume she initially refused to do so on the grounds that it might incriminate her - as is her right under the Fifth Amendment. Therefore the government gave her a letter of immunity, something they can do without her permission. Once she was immune to prosecution, the government could compel her testimony.

I assume she didn't want to go to jail (she does have a daughter, after all), so she testified. I can't say I'd hold that against her. You have very little rights in front of a grand jury.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#12

Post by hyperbovine »

asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt.

If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#13

Post by philwelch »

hyperbovine wrote: post #12
asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

Compelling testimony isn't "shady". Besides, the defense has the power to compel testimony as well. It's in the Constitution.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#14

Post by xentronium »

AlexMuir wrote: post #8
Bud wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just read that entire indictment. I do not find the quote about Norton that you just posted anywhere in the document. There is, in fact, no mention of Norton whatsoever. Do you have some other source for that quote? Because it very much appears that you just created a throwaway account to post this.

A google for that exact phrase shows this: http://gnusha.org/logs/2012-09-15.log I don't know enough about the case to dig further.

http://archive.org/stream/UsaV.AaronSwartz-CriminalDocument2...

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#15

Post by jessaustin »

asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

I'm not really a fan of Norton's journalism, but the insinuation you've made here is execrable. You're a typical American, criticizing a victim of our judicial process rather than the evil prosecutors who distort it for their own gain.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#16

Post by _delirium »

hyperbovine wrote: post #12
asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

The immunity grant needed to compel testimony is also fairly limited. All they have to grant is immunity from the specific compelled statements (and evidence derived from them) being used against the witness in court; that was decided in a 1972 case [1]. The U.S. Supreme Court's reasoning was that, since the 5th amendment only protects withholding statements that might be incriminating, a grant of immunity relating only to those specific statements is sufficient to make compelling them constitutional, because they then can no longer function to legally incriminate. The government can still prosecute the compelled witness in the same case, if they have other evidence.

[1] An old law-review article on the case: http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11...

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#17

Post by tomjen3 »

hyperbovine wrote: post #12
asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

If anybody ever decide to do that to you, just play dumb and arrogant. The jury won't believe you and your enemy will lose.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#18

Post by tomjen3 »

danso wrote: post #4

> When he was 20, he carried me through my divorce. We promised each other a year. I apologized so many times: that I was better than what he was getting, that he got me destroyed. Still, what a year. Later, I tried to take care of him while he was being destroyed, from inside and out. I struggled so hard, but not as hard as he did. I told him, time and again, that this was his 20s. It would be better in his 30s. Jus…

Then go tell that to the murder. I hope the prosecutor burns in hell. Fuck that monkey and all she has ever done.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#19

Post by potatolicious »

jessaustin wrote: post #15
asdadasdgasfa wrote: post #2

http://ia601205.us.archive.org/25/items/UsaV.AaronSwartz-Cri... "Promises, rewards, or inducements have been given to witness Erin Quinn Norton. Copies of the letter agreement with her and order of immunity with respect to her grand jury testimony are disclosed on Disk 3."

I'm not really a fan of Norton's journalism, but the insinuation you've made here is execrable. You're a typical American, criticizing a victim of our judicial process rather than the evil prosecutors who distort it for their own gain.

So... you're responding to an attack against the character of a single individual, with an attack against the character of all Americans. Smooth.

This is a tragedy, and how people view this will vary widely, there is no need kneejerk hate-filled ignorance, even if it does make you feel better.

Re: My Aaron Swartz, whom I loved

#20

Post by rdl »

tomjen3 wrote: post #17
hyperbovine wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that this does not necessarily imply that she sold her friend out. Prosecutors commonly grant immunity in grand jury cases whether or not the witness asked for or wanted it, because it deprives him of the legal basis for invoking the Fifth Amendment. Testimony can then be compelled under threat of contempt. If this sounds shady, that's because it is.

If anybody ever decide to do that to you, just play dumb and arrogant. The jury won't believe you and your enemy will lose.

Also, it's really nice to have a bad memory. Conveniently, bad memory, scared, defensive/arrogant, and combative is pretty much how I'd feel in front of a federal court anyway, so it wouldn't be "playing".
Post reply on HN