> no longer acting in good faith This seems to be the greatest legal casualty of anti-immigrant rhetoric -- cover for bureaucratic apathy. Maybe the author of

> no longer acting in good faith This seems to be the greatest legal casualty of anti-immigrant rhetoric -- cover for bureaucratic apathy. Maybe the author of the initial decision acted with malicious intent. But I'd bet they just didn't care and certified it that way so as to not have the case boomerang back to them. And the political climate gave them flexibility to do so. The only defense against this seems like a more robust, independent version of a Dean of Students, albeit for everyone interfacing with the legal system. Empowered to bring action against egregious ethical or moral breaches. The legal profession seems to have no inclination to weed out those lacking ethical standards, so tragedies like Aaron Schwartz go unpunished. Carmen Ortiz, who oversaw the prosecution as US A, now practices law in the private sector. [1] I get that handling lots of cases with limited resources is difficult. But when you fuck up, and then insist you were right rather than act with some compassion? There should be consequences. [1] http://www.andersonkreiger.com/attorney/carmen-m-ortiz/ http://www.andersonkreiger.com/attorney/carmen-m-ortiz/