3 ms·

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case

by rprasad 14y ago

No conspiracy, guys. The prosecutor was just doing her job. A simple case like Aaron's probably took up less than 1% of her week. It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. The problem was not that Aaron "upset someone deeply entranched." The problem is that Aaron's activities fall into the definition of a particular form of electronic crime which may be overbroad. Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law (because this discretion was historically used to excuse many white defendants accused of lynching black men in the South). They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s).

pekk 14y ago
Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.
drzaiusapelord 14y ago
So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him. Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway. And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on. No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Ortiz not only knew about it, but was rather zealously in favor of prosecuting Aaron (see the NYT article for more details). She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.
todayiamme 14y ago
I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following; a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem) e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few. f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself. g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court. h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of. i) Those individuals within the government have a social network j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government. It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.
brown9-2 14y ago
It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. This makes it even sadder then.
darkarmani 14y ago
> The prosecutor was just doing her job. If that is the case, then she is BAD at her job. You can't have it both ways. Either way, let everyone know that she is either bad at her job or overzealous.
- rprasad 14y ago
  As a former criminal defense attorney, I will say that based on what has been published about her on HN and other websites she's actually very good at her job as a prosecutor, precisely because she is overzealous. In fact, if her fellow prosecutors are to be believed, she's one of the best federal prosecutors still working for the government--after all, she runs the Boston federal prosecutor's office, easily one of the top 4 most prestigious postings a lawyer can hold in the executive branch of the federal government. From my point of view, she is no different from Jack Dorsey, or Steve Jobs, or all those other techheads who are revered for their overzealous and overbearing behavior. The difference is that most people on HN don't, can't, or refuse to understand what her job is and the legal and ethical obligations that come with it. To put things in perspective: you probably feel the same way about this prosecutor as I feel about the guys running AirBnB.
  - temphn 14y ago
    Of course, Dorsey, Jobs, and the founders of AirBnB have produced products that millions of people use voluntarily and find useful. Ortiz and Heymann by contrast decided to threaten a kid with 35 years in jail for downloading pdfs, bankrupting him and driving him to suicide. The repeated claims that there is no such thing as "prosecutorial discretion" (!) and that they were just doing their "job" (!!) are just ludicrously false and Kafkaesque. The US Attorneys in this "prestigious office" knew well what they were doing. They chose to bring this case -- they could well have chosen to dismiss it and focus on one of the many serious violent crimes that happen in MA every year -- and they must be dismissed if there is to be any justice. Somehow one is supposed to be outraged about someone renting out their spare bedroom to make ends meet, but not disturbed by an unelected official railroading and bankrupting Swartz? Indeed, to even defend this lack of accountability while attacking or derailing any measures to hold them accountable? This worldview is absolutely topsy-turvy and incomprehensible; insofar as it has any consistency, it seems to be pure apologia for untrammeled state power, obedience to authority, and rule by lawyers.
askimto 14y ago
Right right she was forced to do it.
temphn 14y ago
Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law...They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s). Simply untrue. "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. This authority is exercised under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates. The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority. The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of the United States Attorney with relation to criminal matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the following: Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the United States, see USAM 9-2.010; Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010; Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020; Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030; Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial related questions; Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170; Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the supervision of the Criminal Division.

by rprasad 14y ago

pekk 14y ago

Federal prosecutors do have a lot of discretion. I don't disagree with much of what you say, but this is just out of control and the only way for it to even start to get fixed is for heads to roll.

drzaiusapelord 14y ago

So you're an up and coming prosecutor and handed the punk kid that took all those federal court documents and gave your colleagues a big middle finger when they tried to stop him. Then JSTOR tells you to knock it off, but you proceed anyway. And all this happens without Ortiz having any idea? Come on. No one is saying Obama would know about this, but a bureaucrat on Ortiz's level does because its her job.

erichocean 14y ago
Ortiz not only knew about it, but was rather zealously in favor of prosecuting Aaron (see the NYT article for more details). She's at least as guilty as the actual prosecutors on the case.

todayiamme 14y ago

I think that the central assumption of your post is that I'm making the assumption that there was a systematic conspiracy to bring him to ruin. I am not alleging that. Neither am I stating anything towards the question whether or not his actions ran afoul of the spirit of the law. (indeed as this man asserts, there is reason to question that as well) I am simply stating an observation based upon the following; a) the prosecutor's office has limited, finite resources to pursue cases b) The prosecutor has discretion over the choice of cases c) The office is judged by its record when it comes to the number of convictions and the quality of the cases pursued d) It is reasonable to assume that the prosecutor acts as an agent, pursuing their own agenda versus the spirit of their duties. (the principal agent problem) e) The legalities in Aaron's case are complicated and understood by a few. f) It is also reasonable to assume that the case is inherently more risky than an open and shut guilty conviction, due to various factors such as, 1) the desire of MIT, JSTOR not to prosecute themselves, 2) expert witnesses such as the author of the article willing to provide testimony against the case, 3) the lack of a direct victim, and 4) questions over the inherent legality of the action itself. g) In the above context it is reasonable to assert that the prosecutor without their well established tricks may have indeed lost this one if Aaron had the resources to have his day in court. h) Aaron has a demonstrated previous track record of acting against the interests of the US govt. and the individuals it consists of. i) Those individuals within the government have a social network j) The said individuals are capable of and are willing to influence one another through this network k) The prosecutor is a part of such a network by her very position within the government. It is therefore reasonable to assume from the above assertions that it is likely the prosecutor was influenced to pursue the case with more rigour than necessary.

brown9-2 14y ago

It may have been a big case to Aaron, but compared to their normal cases, it was a relative vacation for the prosecutors working on it. This makes it even sadder then.

darkarmani 14y ago

> The prosecutor was just doing her job. If that is the case, then she is BAD at her job. You can't have it both ways. Either way, let everyone know that she is either bad at her job or overzealous.

rprasad 14y ago
As a former criminal defense attorney, I will say that based on what has been published about her on HN and other websites she's actually very good at her job as a prosecutor, precisely because she is overzealous. In fact, if her fellow prosecutors are to be believed, she's one of the best federal prosecutors still working for the government--after all, she runs the Boston federal prosecutor's office, easily one of the top 4 most prestigious postings a lawyer can hold in the executive branch of the federal government. From my point of view, she is no different from Jack Dorsey, or Steve Jobs, or all those other techheads who are revered for their overzealous and overbearing behavior. The difference is that most people on HN don't, can't, or refuse to understand what her job is and the legal and ethical obligations that come with it. To put things in perspective: you probably feel the same way about this prosecutor as I feel about the guys running AirBnB.
- temphn 14y ago
  Of course, Dorsey, Jobs, and the founders of AirBnB have produced products that millions of people use voluntarily and find useful. Ortiz and Heymann by contrast decided to threaten a kid with 35 years in jail for downloading pdfs, bankrupting him and driving him to suicide. The repeated claims that there is no such thing as "prosecutorial discretion" (!) and that they were just doing their "job" (!!) are just ludicrously false and Kafkaesque. The US Attorneys in this "prestigious office" knew well what they were doing. They chose to bring this case -- they could well have chosen to dismiss it and focus on one of the many serious violent crimes that happen in MA every year -- and they must be dismissed if there is to be any justice. Somehow one is supposed to be outraged about someone renting out their spare bedroom to make ends meet, but not disturbed by an unelected official railroading and bankrupting Swartz? Indeed, to even defend this lack of accountability while attacking or derailing any measures to hold them accountable? This worldview is absolutely topsy-turvy and incomprehensible; insofar as it has any consistency, it seems to be pure apologia for untrammeled state power, obedience to authority, and rule by lawyers.

askimto 14y ago

Right right she was forced to do it.

temphn 14y ago

Federal prosecutors don't get to decide if laws are overbroad or unconstitutional and choose not to enforce the law...They enforce all of the laws on the books unless someone with legal discretion (i.e. ,the head of the DOJ or the president) issues an order telling them not to enforce a particular (set of) law(s). Simply untrue. "The USA [US Attorney] is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority." http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/2mcrm.htm http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... The United States Attorney, within his/her district, has plenary authority with regard to federal criminal matters. This authority is exercised under the supervision and direction of the Attorney General and his/her delegates. The statutory duty to prosecute for all offenses against the United States (28 U.S.C. § 547) carries with it the authority necessary to perform this duty. The USA is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such authority. The authority, discretionary power, and responsibilities of the United States Attorney with relation to criminal matters encompass without limitation by enumeration the following: Investigating suspected or alleged offenses against the United States, see USAM 9-2.010; Causing investigations to be conducted by the appropriate federal law enforcement agencies, see USAM 9-2.010; Declining prosecution, see USAM 9-2.020; Authorizing prosecution, see USAM 9-2.030; Determining the manner of prosecuting and deciding trial related questions; Recommending whether to appeal or not to appeal from an adverse ruling or decision, see USAM 9-2.170; Dismissing prosecutions, see USAM 9-2.050; and Handling civil matters related thereto which are under the supervision of the Criminal Division.