[deleted]
U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
221–230 of 300 posts
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "... - while a violation of the law - ..." I'm surprised no-one else is commenting specifically on the use of these words. Forgive my lack of knowledge/experience but isn't the point of the courts etc to go through the process of 'innocent until proven guilty'? If this basic premise is broken and no-one's talking about it then things must be in a really bad way.
Of the court - yes, absolutely. Every court case starts with the basic idea that the defendant did nothing wrong. That would be the judge that follows that principle. Is the prosecutor supposed to presume innocence ? No. It's almost the opposite : the U.S. attorney is not an employee of the justice system, she's an employee of the executive (she represents Obama's interest as head of state - nothing else). She is a l…
Minor correction: A U.S. Attorney is an employee of the DOJ, not the White House. While the DOJ is an executive agency under the supervision and oversight of the WH, the WH does not have any say in the day-to-day operations of the DOJ or in prosecutorial decisions. If the WH had such control, there would have been no reason for Ford to pardon Nixon.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the philosophic sense, no! In the we live in the real world sense, absolutely. The US gets to enforce US law around the world because they have more guns. You'll notice that when the USSR was around there were a group of countries with a vastly different system because the USSR had enough guns to force the people of those countries to play along. The International Criminal Court is an even better example, the US i…
In your post, I see a lot of examples of why might makes might, but that's hardly new information.
It's never new information. Reality has been a harsh, harsh mistress for decades and decades now.
It's what makes debating with ideological idealists so contentious IMO. There's no way to convince them to settle for anything other than "what's right", even if the only way to get to that state is to first settle for gradually less-wrong states in between.
Even RMS had the pragmatism to start developing GNU on a proprietary OS with proprietary tools.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statement says as much: "Ultimately, any sentence imposed would have been up to the judge". However, it's a little bit of a stretch to say that the prosecutors were seeking 30 years from the statement (there may be other statements that give information to the contrary).
The prosecutors piled charge upon charge. If they didn't want 30 years, why pile on so much? If they wanted 6 months, they could have stuck with a charge whose sentencing wasn't so extreme.
Double jeopardy (the U.S. Constitutional guarantee against being charged with the same crime twice) basically requires that the prosecutors bring every viable charge that they feel they have the evidence to support for a given single crime.
The flip side to this is that sentences are normally given concurrently, or simply based on the most serious charge actually found guilty of during the trial.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think US Attys prosecute people because they organize peacefully against copyright laws, you're living in a different world from the real one.
Check out Aarons involvement in setting the PACER data free.
Look, I guess you have no reason to believe me, but this is just not how the US government works. There's no staffer in the Administrative Office of the courts who's upset at Aaron and tells the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts to throw the book at him.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
Six months in a minimum security jail seems perfectly reasonable to me for repeatedly breaking the law and in no way some sort of "overreach" or "witch hunt". Her job was to find a settlement acceptable to both parties.
Had they gone to trial, however, he was likely facing 7 years, according to another article on the front page: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
In fairness to the prosecution, pushing for the same exact sentence that the defendant refused to accept on a "gracious" plea bargain is poor economic policy. If the plea bargain sentence is really sufficient then there needs to be incentive to take the plea.
7 years is far less than the maximum sentence so she's still correct in saying they didn't push for the maximum (pending other evidence that might come out).
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#227Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is a Department of Justice press release threatening 35 years: http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2011/July/SwartzAaronPR.... The additional charges added later (after this press release) are the source of the 50 year estimate. 6 months was offered IF he agreed to plead guilty. If he went to trial, the prosecutors claim in the above press release that he faced 35 years; in private communications they have claim…
Apparently a material statement of fact that charges x, y, and z could result in a sentence of up to 35 years is a "threat"? People have shown a great ability to leap into conflating the two, a statement of intent versus a statement of fact.
"We're not saying its going to happen to you, but these other three businesses have burned to the ground. If you give us 10%, we can make sure it doesn't happen to you."
At no point in this sentence did I say "If you do not pay us 10% we will burn down your business." However prosecutions have successfully argued, and any reasonable person would agree, that the first sentence is a threat, is coercive, and is criminal. Making a statement about what "could" happen can be interpreted (often correctly) as a threat. Making a statement about what could happen when the person making it is instrumental, even a required agent, in the future event, is most certainly evidence of a threat. Making such a statement while offering a lesser harm (or sentence) is most certainly a threat.
You may post as many replies on this thread that "threat" doesn't mean what we think it means but the law, common sense, and understanding of English, proves you wrong.
"I didn't intend to burn down their business, judge. I just pointed out that it could happen. Whether or not I would have intended to do so after they decided not to accept my plea-bargain^H^H^H pay my protection fee is immaterial to the case. You are conflating the two, a statement of intent verses a statement of fact. The fact is I did not burn down their business and you have no record of my saying that I intended to."
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#228At no time did this office ever seek – or ever tell Mr. Swartz’s attorneys that it intended to seek – maximum penalties under the law. The absolute dishonesty of this statement has only further convinced me that firing this political appointee to prevent her from further harming citizens is the only appropriate action for our government to take.
Except that the statement is true. Even the worst case of actual sentencing threats that have come out so far have been in the range of 7 years if the case went to trial, not 35 or 50.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ortiz today: 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. Ortiz on 9/2012, adding 9 counts to the conduct that we learn "did not warrant...severe punishment": http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/aaron-swartz-felony... Federal prosectors added nine new felony cou…
"And here is Ortiz in her own press release telling the entire world the DOJ is threatening Swartz with a maximum penalty of 35 years and $1M in fines: 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…
To say that it "in no way" says that is simply incorrect.
It's quite clearly swinging around the threat of a big sentence. I can't see how that could possibly be more clear.
It's meant to intimidate and frighten, not just Swartz, but any one else who may come into conflict with the United States Attorneys. That's why it's there.
It's not merely a statement of fact, it's bragging and intimidation.
Re: U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz Issues Statement on Aaron Swartz Case
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
Had they gone to trial, however, he was likely facing 7 years, according to another article on the front page: http://www.volokh.com/2013/01/16/the-criminal-charges-agains...
In fairness to the prosecution, pushing for the same exact sentence that the defendant refused to accept on a "gracious" plea bargain is poor economic policy. If the plea bargain sentence is really sufficient then there needs to be incentive to take the plea. 7 years is far less than the maximum sentence so she's still correct in saying they didn't push for the maximum (pending other evidence that might come out).
Not doing it is poor strategy, yes, but that doesn't mean that we have to accept it as good public policy. I found the recently posted paper on the German system enlightening: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5059044