6 ms·

As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.

by temphn 14y ago

As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony. http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bully http://lessig.tumblr.com/post/40347463044/prosecutor-as-bull... In that world, the question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a “felon.” For in the 18 months of negotiations, that was what he was not willing to accept, and so that was the reason he was facing a million dollar trial in April — his wealth bled dry, yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense, at least without risking the ire of a district court judge. And so as wrong and misguided and fucking sad as this is, I get how the prospect of this fight, defenseless, made it make sense to this brilliant but troubled boy to end it. The prosecutor isn't getting the "benefit of the doubt" because even a cursory look into her history shows that her office and attorneys (like Steve Heymann) have been railroading defendants and pushing spurious cases (google "Ortiz Russ Caswell" or "Ortiz UIGEA"). Carmen M. Ortiz is a bad person who abused her authority and the public trust; with Steve Heymann she pushed for 35 years in federal prison for downloading pdfs even when JSTOR refused to press charges. She cannot be voted out, and she will not listen to reason, so she must be forced to resign in disgrace. This is what prosecutors call "deterrence". Sign the petition if you don't want Aaron's death to be in vain. He helped start the movement against SOPA for us, it is the least we can do for him. https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-stat...

jamesaguilar 14y ago
From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.
- rhizome 14y ago
  most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
      - jamesaguilar 14y ago
        I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse." > make an example of someone I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence. > evade establishing precedent I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.
- andreyf 14y ago
  He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
  - emkemp 14y ago
    Then he should have gone to trial.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
      - emkemp 14y ago
        How so? What was preventing him from setting up a legal defense fund and accepting contributions? Hell, what if the judge had thrown out the charges?
        thenetwork 14y ago
        Federal criminal charges don't get thrown out. That is very rare. The way the laws are written the feds were going to win. Aaron was trying to do something that should be legal, but the feds were going to get their win. The problem is that what they report to the press and what they actually win on at court can vary widely, so Aaron was going to be ruined and he was going to serve hard time in prison. He shouldn't have killed himself though. He could have had a prosperous life after prison, but his public reputation was destroyed forever.
  - jamesaguilar 14y ago
    There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood, did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
    - 14y ago
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  Not to be mean about it but it doesn't seem like you know what the word "felon" means. If you are never convicted of a felony, you are not a felon. There are real legal implications beyond your sentence if you are convicted as a felon. I think you should look into the information, possibly on Wikipedia regarding this; it is very relevant and the fact that you think it's not is confusing to me.
tzs 14y ago
> As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony Felonies can be expunged. See Randall Schwartz's case, for example.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.
  - MichaelSalib 14y ago
    With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar. Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?
    - rms 14y ago
      Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.
      - jlgreco 14y ago
        It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen. Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginalize this consideration, but it is incredibly transparent.
        MichaelSalib 14y ago
        Ah, thanks for explaining. Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency? I get how a felony conviction might be a big deal for someone with a GED and no money and no connections. But Swartz had lots of connections and lots of money and was widely respected in professional circles. I really can't see any startup that he wanted to work for rejecting him over his felony conviction. And while some owners might not want to rent to people with violent felony records, I'm having trouble seeing many owners reject an accomplished man with money and recommendation letters from Larry Lessig and Cory Doctrow.

by temphn 14y ago

jamesaguilar 14y ago

From what I understand, he committed a felony and would most probably have been labelled a felon either way. I don't see this as a reason to tie up government resources in a trial whose outcome is basically a foregone conclusion. I do not endorse what he did being a felony. But that issue is only marginally relevant to the discussion of the prosecutor's behavior.

rhizome 14y ago
most probably Which means "maybe." The government should have to fight for these things, not have them handed a victory through sheer intimidation in the form of a plea bargain.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  And the government was fully prepared to fight for them. So . . . the world is as it should be at least according to the parameters of your previous comment. Also, "most probably" indicates a bias toward true, where maybe is more like 50-50. I did not say maybe, I said most probably. All degrees of likelihood are not the same for me, so please don't replace my words. If you did want to reword what I was saying, "not certainly" or "not definitely" would have been more appropriate.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    I'm not rewording, I'm interpreting. "Maybe" covers the whole field of uncertainty, and unless you're going to show your work, vis a vis probability calculations (such as they may be), I'll just stick with that. Regardless, you don't address my, "intimidation by plea bargain," angle, which speaks to their confidence. If they want to make an example of someone, which I hope we can agree was happening here, why even try to short circuit the process and evade establishing precedent? Even (or especially) for a careerist prosecutor's scoreboard, verdicts are more valuable than deals made.
    - jamesaguilar 14y ago
      I addressed it in another comment on this thread. Intimidation by plea bargain could equally be referred to as "No reason to plea bargain if the punishment upon guilty verdict isn't worse." > make an example of someone I think you're reading more into the motives of the prosecutor than is actually available from the evidence. > evade establishing precedent I don't think they need a case to establish precedent here. The law isn't perfectly clear, so there are gray areas, but my reading of it (as a non-lawyer, and corroborated by lawyerly readings in other threads) is that aaron's case was pretty deep in the "illegal" territory.
andreyf 14y ago
He was accused of committing a felony. There's quite a difference.
- emkemp 14y ago
  Then he should have gone to trial.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Even a not-guilty plea would have left him ruined.
    - emkemp 14y ago
      How so? What was preventing him from setting up a legal defense fund and accepting contributions? Hell, what if the judge had thrown out the charges?
      - thenetwork 14y ago
        Federal criminal charges don't get thrown out. That is very rare. The way the laws are written the feds were going to win. Aaron was trying to do something that should be legal, but the feds were going to get their win. The problem is that what they report to the press and what they actually win on at court can vary widely, so Aaron was going to be ruined and he was going to serve hard time in prison. He shouldn't have killed himself though. He could have had a prosperous life after prison, but his public reputation was destroyed forever.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  There's not always so much of a difference between those two things. If he did the things he was accused of doing that is a felony. There's little doubt that he did those things (the downloading and such) so he, in all likelihood, did commit a felony. Let's not focus too much on technicalities and semantics.
  - 14y ago
dinkumthinkum 14y ago
Not to be mean about it but it doesn't seem like you know what the word "felon" means. If you are never convicted of a felony, you are not a felon. There are real legal implications beyond your sentence if you are convicted as a felon. I think you should look into the information, possibly on Wikipedia regarding this; it is very relevant and the fact that you think it's not is confusing to me.

tzs 14y ago

> As Lessig reported, the plea bargain would have meant pleading guilty to a felony Felonies can be expunged. See Randall Schwartz's case, for example.

jlgreco 14y ago
Oh yeah, I guess a felony is no big deal then. How foolish of Aaron.
- MichaelSalib 14y ago
  With respect, was there any problem with the felony besides his ego? I mean, I know people whose lifelong dream is to be a defense attorney. For those folks, a felony would be a huge problem since it would keep them from gaining admission to the bar. Did Swartz have a similar issue? Or was he unable to bear the thought of being called names by that paragon of moral legitimacy known as the US government?
  - rms 14y ago
    Being a felon seriously decreases ones ability to move internationally.
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      It also hurts employment (not just if you want to be a lawyer...) and even housing prospects. Being a felon very effectively makes you a second class citizen. Even ignoring all of that, there is the factor of being forced to submit before an unjust power. The "felon" assignment did not represent just a label, but also total submission. Just summing this up as a problem with his "ego" may seem a good way to marginalize this consideration, but it is incredibly transparent.
      - MichaelSalib 14y ago
        Ah, thanks for explaining. Is the "moving internationally" issue a question of travel or permanent residency? I get how a felony conviction might be a big deal for someone with a GED and no money and no connections. But Swartz had lots of connections and lots of money and was widely respected in professional circles. I really can't see any startup that he wanted to work for rejecting him over his felony conviction. And while some owners might not want to rent to people with violent felony records, I'm having trouble seeing many owners reject an accomplished man with money and recommendation letters from Larry Lessig and Cory Doctrow.