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

21–30 of 209 posts

Re: undefined

#21

Post by dthunt »

__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.

You need to understand that these people are maximalists. They're never going to say 'we're asking for 7 years' in any context where that can be recorded, because it weakens their hand at the bargaining table. In fact, the shakier the case is, the more they need those 'worst case' numbers to terrify.

The only things that matter to these maximalist dickholes is:

* successful conviction * maximum penalty they can achieve with what they have * if you don't take the plea bargain, make you regret it

If they really hate you, they put people on 'document generation duty', which is cheaper than document review, and throw hundreds of thousands of documents at you during trial. They find the most expensive venue for you, and if you have an employer that has somehow stuck by you this long, they coerce it into letting you go.

The entire goal of this sort of thing is to deprive people of a chance to actually go to trial and stand a chance of acquittal, particularly when gaining a conviction 'honestly' is going to be difficult or expensive.

Re: undefined

#22

Post by fleitz »

pbreit wrote: post #15
yardie wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> US attorneys don't write the press releases, those are done by the most junior lawyers Does it matter who wrote it? It came from her office, she approved it, and therefore she said it.

"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 out in a month, which means probably a suspended sentence. My advice to anyone thinking about killing themselves over spending 35 years in jail... stop watching Oz, visit someone actually in a minimum security prison, ask them what it's like, take a plea for 4 months, get some exercize, go to bed early, eat some shitty food and enjoy all the ammenities club fed has to offer for a month or two.

Re: undefined

#23

Post by jamesaguilar »

pbreit wrote: post #16

I like Linus and think Ortiz is an idiot[1] but he messed up on this one. The "faces up to 35 years" is obviously not a quote from Ortiz. [1] Did Ortiz really not understand that pretty much everything Swartz did in in the second half of his life was both prolific and for the greater good on a very large scale?

Are you kidding me? She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Calling her am idiot on this context is simply without any basis

Honestly, I'm not sure if any story since a started reading this site has resulted in such a high proportion of minimally thought-out comments.

Re: undefined

#24

Post by jacquesm »

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.

Exactly. Vivtek caught on to this in this thread:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5072066

Re: undefined

#25

Post by Xylakant »

dthunt wrote: post #21
__alexs wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You need to understand that these people are maximalists. They're never going to say 'we're asking for 7 years' in any context where that can be recorded, because it weakens their hand at the bargaining table. In fact, the shakier the case is, the more they need those 'worst case' numbers to terrify. The only things that matter to these maximalist dickholes is: * successful conviction * maximum penalty they can achie…

I don't even think that it's a maximalist approach. It's a "we don't talk about ongoing investigations" approach so there is no figure that anybody could quote apart from the maximum.

Re: undefined

#26

Post by jacquesm »

dustin wrote: post #18

For all the posts saying Linus is wrong, which he may well be technically, consider this from a layman's perspective. Ortiz recently: "At no time did this office ever seek ... maximum penalties under the law." Justice.gov previously: "SWARTZ faces up to 35 years in prison..." At a minimum it's a bad PR screw-up on their part and they're backpedaling because their "make us look tough" press releases have backfired. Mo…

Agreed, unfortunately this is a legal case and it probably won't be judged from a layman's perspective. That doesn't make it any less bad but it does give Ortiz some wiggle room and it will no doubt be used to salvage what they can from this situation. The conversation should therefore not revolve around legal technicalities but around morality and around systemic issues. If this is 'technically correct' then there is an even bigger problem than if this is just (and I use that word knowing full well this is no small matter) about Aaron.

Re: undefined

#27

Post by runarb »

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.

She can save the "technically true" for the other lawyers, the rest of us are not amused. The fact remains that she was seeking a severe sentence, but now want to magically make up another truth...

If she think she was right in the first place, she sold stick to it. If not she should apologize. Now she is just looking like a fool.

Re: undefined

#28

Post by laurent123456 »

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…

Was the $1.5 million only to lower the 6 months? Does that mean that if he had accepted the 4 months, he wouldn't have had anything to pay?

Re: undefined

#29

Post by 3amOpsGuy »

djmdjm wrote: post #14

[someone who has no inside or even detailed knowledge of the case] says Carmen Ortiz is lying. How does this advance the debate?

It's an indirect advancement. It's beneficial by expanding the circle of people engaged in the issue.

To some extent, it doesn't really matter what Linus proclaimed but he's helped here by tipping others over the edge of contributing to the discussion.

By that i mean, how many people who have great respect for Linus, previously sat quiet on the issue, absorbing the information, but now feel engaged enough to voice an opinion? I'd wager quite a few.

Good on him for not sitting quiet. A big public spotlight's exactly what's needed on this issue. Linus just helped cast the beam a little wider.

Re: undefined

#30

Post by carlisle_ »

I'm not an attorney, but I would imagine even if Carmen Ortiz were completely at fault she would never admit as much and would never apologize. Why? Because she could open herself up to a civil lawsuit.

This just speaks so highly of the state of our society. Even if you're at fault taking the moral high ground, owning up and apologizing means you could have the rest of your life ruined. Granted in this context it's a highly sensitive issue as Aaron lost his life, but the fact our culture is so highly litigious makes me sad.

Post reply on HN