Aaron Swartz's Partner Accuses DOJ Of Lying, Seizing Evidence Without A Warrant & Withholding Exculpatory Evidence

from the good-prosecutorial-discretion? dept

Fri, Mar 8th 2013 11:18am — Mike Masnick

Yesterday we wrote about Attorney General Eric Holder's ridiculous claims defending the prosecution of Aaron Swartz. We noted two key things that were ridiculous. First, Holder insisted that Swartz was only facing a few months in jail (he implied 5 months, tops) and scolded the media for claiming it was 35 years. As we noted it was the US Attorneys' own press release that trumpeted the 35 years. More importantly, the few months in prison was only if he agreed to plead guilty. If he continued to profess his innocence (something you would do if you believed you were innocent), the US Attorneys claimed they were going to push for seven years. The other ridiculous point that Holder made was that it was "good prosecutorial discretion" to offer just a few months in the plea bargain, because that somehow showed them recognizing the "context" of the crime.

In response, Swartz's girlfriend, Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman has put out a very strong statement, slamming Holder's claims. Not only does she highlight the threat of seven years in prison, but she goes much further, to allege clear prosecutorial misconduct by the US Attorney's office, including seizing and holding evidence without a warrant, lying to the judge and then withholding exculpatory evidence from Swartz's lawyers. These are three really serious charges that I haven't seen much discussion about previously:

"Eric Holder and the Department of Justice are clearly trying to mislead the Senate and the public. Holder claims that Aaron was only facing months in prison while Heymann and Ortiz were actively pursuing a penalty of 7 years if the case went to trial. If you believe you're innocent, you should not be coerced into accepting a plea bargain that marks you as a felon for life, just because prosecutors want to boast about taking a scalp. The discrepancy between the plea deal and the amount of prison time prosecutors said they would pursue at trial violates the DOJ's own guidelines in this regard. Holder is trying to engage in revisionist history at the same time he claims that the strict sentences pursued by prosecutors were a 'good use of prosecutorial discretion.'

What's worse, this isn't just about sentencing. Steve Heymann engaged in serious prosecutorial misconduct on multiple occasions. Public documents show that he instructed the Secret Service to seize and hold evidence without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment. He then lied to the judge about that fact in written briefs. And he withheld exculpatory evidence from Aaron's lawyers for over a year, despite both a legal and ethical obligation to turn it over. If this constitutes appropriate behavior from the perspective of the Department of Justice, then we live in a police state.

The Department of Justice is not interested in admitting their errors, even when an out of control US Attorney's office has cost this country one of our best and brightest. The DOJ is only interested in covering their asses."

It's too bad that Holder wasn't quizzed about those specific points as well. The fact that he was able to mischaracterize the actions by the US Attorney's office in how they went after Swartz is really unfortunate.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: aaron swartz, carmen ortiz, doj, eric holder, prosecutorial discretion, steve heymann, taren stinebrickner-kauffman

153 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:29am

Public documents show that he instructed the Secret Service to seize and hold evidence without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment.

What are these documents? I'd like to see where the AUSA asked the Secret Service to violate the Fourth Amendment. Not all seizures require a warrant, and I doubt she's a Fourth Amendment expert, so I have serious doubts about this claim. The "public documents" should be able to clear it right up. matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:12pm
  
  Re:
  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  
  Where exactly is the exceptions to 'shall not be violated' that permit seizure of documents without a warrant?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You ever watch "Cops"? Ever see a the cop frisk a subject or find contraband in the car? Ever see them produce a warrant? Warrants are situational.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - silverscarcat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Frisking a suspect is for the cop's own protection. Searching a car can be illegal unless the contraband is in plain sight or the suspect gives permission. If the suspect says no, you can't search my car, then they need a warrant unless they can see something like weed out in the open.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:50pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Smoke a joint in your car and drive down the road 20 miles over the speed limit and see what happens to the bag of weed under your seat
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Stupid example is stupid. *Rolls eyes* If you're going 20 miles over the speed limit, you're endangering others and yourself, thus law enforcement has a right to pull you over. And since you're smoking a joint, that's obvious evidence and thus they can search your car without a warrant.
        
        Your stupidity is astounding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I was responding to this uninformed pile of shit:
        
        Searching a car can be illegal unless the contraband is in plain sight or the suspect gives permission. If the suspect says no, you can't search my car, then they need a warrant unless they can see something like weed out in the open.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thanks for showing how stupid you are, again.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:25pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm going to let this go. Last time we went at it, you were reduced to tears and I ended up feeling sorry for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know what world you shills or whatever live in
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:21am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You really are astoundingly stupid.
        
        Do you like making a fool of yourself on a public forum?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:00pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      it's called 'probable cause' simply you DO NOT need a warrant if you have 'probable cause'.. It's really not that hard to understand.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It says that we are secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Some searches and seizures are reasonable without a warrant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_wa rrant_requirement
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  Curious why no link to where these comments appear.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:40pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Curious why no link to where these comments appear.
    
    Answered below. They were emailed directly to Mike.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:41pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, I later noted this. Perhaps he should ask for permission to reproduce it here.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Why do you suppose it was sent to him and not just some random person.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:39am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Two things:
        
        Why would permission be necessary to reproduce an e-mail sent to him?
        
        Why do you assume this was published without her knowledge?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      what you cant put links in emails, or does Masnick not know how to 'check the sources' and provide a link for everyone else.
      
      Or is it what most expect, that it simply DOES NOT EXIST..
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prokofy Neva (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:33pm
  
  Re:
  The rules are different for trespassers. Read the court documents.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:40am

Public documents show that he instructed the Secret Service to seize and hold evidence without a warrant, violating the Fourth Amendment.

Citation needed

The discrepancy between the plea deal and the amount of prison time prosecutors said they would pursue at trial violates the DOJ's own guidelines in this regard.

Citation needed

And he withheld exculpatory evidence from Aaron's lawyers for over a year, despite both a legal and ethical obligation to turn it over.

Citation needed

Blaring headlines trumpeting serious allegations should allude to at least some basis in fact- even by the abysmally low Techdirt standards.

Out of curiosity Mike, is this you "doing" journalism this time or just another irresponsible, fact-free diatribe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:46am
  
  Re:
  The only low standards I see are yours.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:51am
  
  Re:
  I'm quite sure that even when/if 100% completely irrefutable black and white evidence shows all of the above to be true, you would still be defending the DOJ and US Attorney. Either that or be completely silent and looking for the next poor schmoe to persecute.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:52am
  
  Re:
  Blaring headlines trumpeting serious allegations should allude to at least some basis in fact-....
  
  Umm. Mike is repeating what someone else stated. The only fact that would need to be checked is if the person actually said it or not. All of you "citations needed" should be directed at the person who originally said them.
  
  I will say that a link or source for Taren's statement should have been included in the article though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I will say that a link or source for Taren's statement should have been included in the article though.
    
    It was sent directly to me via email.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It was sent directly to me via email.
      
      Ahhh.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Prokofy Neva (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So what? Given how much you've written on this case, you should read the court documents which establish that the 4th amendment wasn't violated and the lawyer didn't make the case. He claimed he was about to when Swartz committed suicide, but that was just a spin.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re:
    How about fact checking the source's allegations. That seems dependent on whether the assertions made are consistent or not with the TD narrative.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:53am
  
  Re:
  "Out of curiosity Mike, is this you "doing" journalism this time or just another irresponsible, fact-free diatribe?
  
  Uhh.... pretty sure he's saying the girlfriend put out that statement as it's in a quoted block. Try reading it again maybe?
  
  There is no reason not to think this statement of allegations isn't newsworthy. At the very least it brings up the argument to not take Holder for his word and that more investigation needs to take place....
  
  As far as any citations, these are allegations at this point made in a statement by someone who is in position to know something. Don't take them as fact, but they are very serious allegations nonetheless...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- yaga (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:54am
  
  Re:
  Mike is just reporting on what another person said. He doesn't have to show the evidence that backs those statements. If you want the evidence write to Ms. Stinebrickner-Kauffman.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    So Mike is free to "report" on any wild allegation by any disgruntled party free of any responsibility to assess whether what they're saying contains even a grain of truth? That's kind of the issue. Anything printed that runs counter to the TD narrative gets a body cavity inspection. Anything that's consistent gets treated as Gospel.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Anything that's consistent gets treated as Gospel.
      
      I won't speak for anyone else, but I am treating this for what it is: a statement from someone who is close to the situation.
      
      If you wish to expend your energy to debunk the statement, go for it. Let us know what you come up with, k?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - RD, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "So Mike is free to "report" on any wild allegation by any disgruntled party free of any responsibility to assess whether what they're saying contains even a grain of truth? That's kind of the issue. Anything printed that runs counter to the TD narrative gets a body cavity inspection. Anything that's consistent gets treated as Gospel."
      
      Then start your own fucking OPINION BLOG (which is what TD is, its not a "journalist" site) and STFU.
      
      Oh I get it. You can point out any fallacy or inadequacy you perceive and expect a response or some kind of change to occur, but when everyone else here does the same thing about any of the topics discussed with a similar call to action, then it's a hand-wave-dismissal and an "it's the LAW!" appeal to authority and everyone should just go along like sheep.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Funny Mike "Waffles" Masnick claims to "do journalism". But sometimes he claims he doesn't. It's hard to follow when he's being a journalist and when he's not. Seems like when it suits him, he's a journalist. When it doesn't he's not. Whichever way he goes, it's a great way to avoid any accountability.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike doesn't do accountability. That's for sure.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Explain how Mike is not accountable for what he says? It's not like he's hiding behind an AC tag like you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        or three random initials
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I guess you must have missed the profile link. A public list of past comments is hardly hiding.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:01pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I"m not the one being accused of not being accountable.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not like he's hiding behind an AC tag like you are.
        
        Really? What the fuck is this supposed to mean? Sounds like you're the one making the accusations about hiding behind anonymity while you are hiding in anonymity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 12:53am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Jesus, learn to read! The AC's accusation was that Mike "doesn't do accountability", which I pointed out was hypocritical. My anonymity is irrelevant to the discussion.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 8:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hey man, you're feeding this troll and it's after midnight... he's going all gremlin on you. ;)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Rikuo (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:46pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go on, quote when he said that.
        
        You claim to be a donkey rapist. Do I have a quote? No. Neither do you. Thus, my statement is worth as much as yours.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So Mike is free to "report" on any wild allegation by any disgruntled party free of any responsibility to assess whether what they're saying contains even a grain of truth? That's kind of the issue. Anything printed that runs counter to the TD narrative gets a body cavity inspection. Anything that's consistent gets treated as Gospel.
      
      Exactly. It's left to the reader to ponder when he's doing journalism and when he's not. Clearly here he is not, since no actual journalist would have printed this story.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Journalists not printing stories that they should print is also a sign of a bad (or 'non') journalist. and Mike doesn't claim to be a journalist though that doesn't mean he does no journalism at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        silverscarcat (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I suppose you have no idea that the absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.
        
        It's really quite simple.
        
        Mike's not a journalist, but he does do journalistic reporting.
        
        There, simple.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So what is the above?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Wait, wait... this just in from that bastion of journalism, Russia Today:
        
        TechDirt reporter Mike Masnick says the statement demonstrates �three really serious charges that I haven't seen much discussion about previously.� Although Holder, Heymann and Ortiz have been accused or prosecutorial overreach in the past, Stinebrickner-Kauffman�s latest claims allege much more.
        
        More laughably, the Russians characterize Masnick as a reporter, further impugning journalists worldwide.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:42pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        More laughably, the Russians characterize Masnick as a reporter, further impugning journalists worldwide.
        
        And that's the problem with Mike's silly claim that he sometimes does journalism but isn't a journalist. He wants to be taken seriously and respected as a journalist, but he doesn't want to be beholden to those pesky journalistic ethics and practices. Cake and eat it too, as it were.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you understand the First Amendment, how?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I fail to see what the 1st Amendment has to do with on again-off again claims of "doing journalism". Are you talking about 1st Amendment protection of Masnick's right to waffle? Then maybe you have a point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reporters and journalists are two different things. As an example, US mainstream media still has some reporters, but has nearly no journalists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Nigel (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one gives a shit what you anonymous pussies have to say.
        
        Nigel
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No one gives a shit what you anonymous pussies have to say.
        
        Nigel
        
        Nor foreigners, as it's none of their goddamned business anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, that's right, foreigners don't give a shit about what you have to say either. What's your point?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 8:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, because shit that happens in your country never leaks acid to the rest of the world. Lucky us, foreigners.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The Russians are about the last people I'd pay attention to on their opinions of 'journalism'.
        
        (As an aside, I note that it is typically mind-gallingly hypocritical that all the old Cold Warriors suddenly 'love' Pravda when it is critical of Obama and how America is.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - placental detritus (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To your question; yes, he is. Amendment Numero Uno kind of thing. Even fools who ask (paraphrased) "is he actually allowed he write whatever he wants?!!" are actually allowed to write whatever they want.
      
      Seriously cool part of American history, that First one; read up on it if you have a chance.
      
      To your assertion of 'the issue' being people who make an argument "that Mr Masnik is wrong" face a more determined rebuttal than those folks who agree with him is... sadly, a bit myopic. It is _barely_ an issue, much less 'the issue' at hand.
      
      and kind of "well, duh!"
      
      and kind of a more honorable way of doing what you are doing when you side-step the actual presented issue to call him out for his "unfair" bias instead of presenting a coherent argument that demonstrated that you went and fact checked and found... what?
      
      are you a troll, Sir? Are you?
      
      I hope that Ms. S-K's allegations cause fact checking that causes Mr Holder to have to defend himself in open court. I've been anticipating some form of 'insider' counter-narrative to surface, if for no other reason than the volume of spin control the DoJ has invested in this affair.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 2:56am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So Mike is free to "report" on any wild allegation by any disgruntled party free of any responsibility to assess whether what they're saying contains even a grain of truth
      
      Works for you and your ilk, doesn't it? Double standards much?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:28am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      gospel? It says accusation in bold letters at the top of the page. You remember the word accusation right? It's the word we used to describe the silly 6 strikes things to show why they shouldn't carry the weight that people are attracted to them? Gospel my ass.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 5:34pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      To be fair, this isn't just "any disgruntled party" we're talking about.
      
      You are right that anything printed that runs counter to the TD narrative usually get deconstructed to hell and back, but not always. Things that are consistent are not treated as the truth as often as you think. Usually, they are quoted with little comment. That's what happened here; the comment amounts to "interesting questions; I'd like to see the official responses to them", which is hardly a ringing endorsement.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 6:10pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty balanced assessment....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:55am
  
  Re:
  Out of curiosity Mike, is this you "doing" journalism this time or just another irresponsible, fact-free diatribe?
  
  FUD-packers don't need evidence. Just accusations.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:07pm
    
    Re: Re:
    FUD-packers don't need evidence. Just accusations.
    
    I have no idea who you mean by "FUD-packers", but if you are referring the DOJ, the MPAA or the RIAA, then yeah, I agree with you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      
      Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:40pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, I'm referring to the world's biggest FUD-packer, Mike Masnick. Thought that was clear.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You actually expect people to understand and take your references seriously when you make no attempt to understand the author's in the article you are posting about?
        
        The double standard article is the next one.... maybe check that one out?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:24pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Thought that was clear.
        
        About as clear as mud.
        
        But hey, it's Friday and I'm a bit bored, so I want in this game of making up childish words to insult people with.
        
        You are a twiddle-smacker. Your turn.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - techflaws (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 2:57am
    
    Re: Re:
    FUD-packers don't need evidence. Just accusations.
    
    Works for the industry so why not have the knife cut both ways?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pd, 9 Mar 2013 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  Ha! He really can't resist, can he? The brain of the year (not) has spoken and his word is law!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:50am

Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
Disclaimer for the hard-of-understanding: Holder is an only too typical gov't thug with way too much power and no obvious scruples about using it.

BUT the precipating action seems due to an ingrained attitude rich young kids have that they can escape consequences, at most call their lawyer to bail 'em out. -- Includes ignorance of the actualities of how poor people are oppressed EVERY DAY by attack dogs with badges, especially what young black men experience just by going out on the street: illegal causeless stops, searches, and seizures, direct to jail without seeing a judge or having an attorney. But of course 1% Ivy League Mike doesn't concern himself with ordinary people, only with privileged snots who think they should "liberate" data.

Anyway, try to truly grasp that the gov't is completely insane and power mad. And so are The Rich.

Therefore, PICK YOUR BATTLES. -- And be on the right side of morality, not present yourselves as "pirates". I bet Aaron Swartz wished he'd fought the battle on moral grounds instead of tossing himself into the sausage grinder that is "Justice" by taking actions that can easily be construed as criminal...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 11:57am
  
  Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
  Pretty sure Mike and company have covered plenty of stories of police abuse. This is just a major news event in a very public technical figure. The case even has Congress involved. You don't think it should be reported on? Remind me not to read any news that went through the ootb filter....
  
  Oh wait, to you everything Mike does is inherently wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:15pm
  
  Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
  i'm trying to think what that quote by Cardinal Richelieu was...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
  I bet Aaron Swartz wished he'd fought the battle on moral grounds
  
  Swartz clearly believed that he was fighting the battle on moral grounds. So what's your point?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:58am
    
    Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
    the point is he did not fight any battle, did not stand up for any 'right' or 'cause', he killed himself instead.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:33am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
      You may not agree with his cause, but he did indeed fight a battle several, actually), and was indeed standing up for and fighting for what he believed was right.
      
      Just because he lost doesn't take away from any of that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Any Mouse (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 12:52pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
      Your mis-characterization of his suicide is problematic, and far-too common in society, today. The assumption is that someone kills themselves and is therefore weak. No one stops to take into consideration mental health issues. People with mental health problems such as depression do not make the best decisions. They make the decisions their illness pushes them towards. Using his suicide to 'make a point' in the manner that you do makes you the person on the wrong side of the debate by default. You cannot know why he committed suicide or what he was thinking in the moments before. All you can do is make assumptions and sickeningly twist it all to your own benefit or argument. Please, take that troll elsewhere.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:26pm
  
  Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
  "BUT the precipating action seems due to an ingrained attitude rich young kids have that they can escape consequences...
  
  But of course 1% Ivy League Mike doesn't concern himself with ordinary people, only with privileged snots who think they should "liberate" data."
  
  Your descriptions of Aaron and Mike are hilariously inaccurate, but they also reveal your deep-seated jealously of anyone who you perceive as more financially successful than you. I suspect that's quite a lot of people.
  
  "I bet Aaron Swartz wished he'd fought the battle on moral grounds instead of tossing himself into the sausage grinder that is "Justice" by taking actions that can easily be construed as criminal..."
  
  Basically you think Aaron should have been a coward like you and just toed the line instead of standing up for what he firmly believed in.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
    Basically you think Aaron should have been a coward like you and just toed the line instead of standing up for what he firmly believed in.
    
    How is hanging himself "standing up for what he firmly believed in"?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:22pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
      Now you're just being deliberately disingenuous.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        No I'm not. How was hanging himself "standing up for what he firmly believed in"?
        
        Standing up would have had him to tell the prosecutor to shove his plea offer and try his case and fight for his cause before a jury of his peers. Feel free to explain your contention. I think its really weak.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 10 Mar 2013 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        It wasn't. The disingenuous part is that you keep coming back to his suicide as if that was was the important action he took. You're trying to use his suicide to distract everyone from what he was really doing.
        
        His suicide was a tragic failure, but that failure in no way negates what he did up to that point -- which was to fight for his ideals to an extent that very few people have the balls to do.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 2:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        John, what did he actually do?
        
        I know there was a plea agreement that failed, return of JSTOR's material, restitution to JSTOR and an apology to them as well. There was also a failed motion to suppress evidence against Swartz.
        
        But I see none of that as "fighting for his ideals". Are there other actions he took that show him fighting for his beliefs? Because apologizing, paying restitution and returning the purloined files seems a lot like an admission of wrongful conduct to me. From everything I've read, I infer that he didn't take the plea deal because he didn't want to suffer the consequences- not that he was bent on the righteousness of his cause and wanted to draw attention to both cause and government persecution through a big public trial. Read the girlfriend's screed- it all seems to boil down to an inability to cope with the consequences of his actions. And that coupled with his mental illness led to a tragic decision.
        
        Until you can provide an example of even one act of courage and/or principled stand, I have think that your objectivity is severely compromised.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        John Fenderson (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 6:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        what did he actually do?
        
        Wikipedia has a decent overview of his work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
        
        You're focusing on the JSTOR debacle. That's far too narrow of a view. His life is full of principled stands and fighting for what he believed in.
        
        Because apologizing, paying restitution and returning the purloined files seems a lot like an admission of wrongful conduct to me.
        
        Not to me. To me, this sounds like someone who was facing a legal situation that he couldn't deal with, and was looking for a way to resolve it without too much sacrifice. This sort of thing happens all the time. Apologizing, paying restitution, and "returning" the files are easy, meaningless things (in this case) that might have lifted a burden beyond his ability to cope.
        
        You say "inability to cope with the consequences of his actions", and that's not wrong as far as it goes. But those consequences were an overbearing, out-of-proportion, abusive DOJ. He didn't predict such a crazed response (who could have?). I think a better phrasing of your statement is "inability to cope with an out-of-control prosecution".
        
        You are correct that his story ended the way it did because of his own demons. You're incorrect that this means that his actions and intentions prior to the end are in some way called into question.
        
        From everything I've read, I infer that he didn't take the plea deal because he didn't want to suffer the consequences
        
        According to everything I've read, he didn't take the plea deal because he didn't think he was guilty of what he was being charged with.
        
        I have think that your objectivity is severely compromised.
        
        Irrelevant. I don't claim objectivity. That said, I'm no less objective than you are.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2013 @ 9:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        Moving the goalpost again? The entire conversation has been about the JSTOR debacle.
        
        And I see little difference between compromising ones principles and apologizing, returning files and paying restitution than accepting a plea bargain. It's the SAME thing, except one cost money and loss of face, the other caused loss of time and (perhaps) a stigma. Neither of those actions are consistent with "fighting back" or a principled stand". I he felt he did nothing wrong, why apologize? Why return the files? Why pay damages?
        
        I simply don't see anything other than someone looking to avoid the consequences of his own actions. You, nor anyone else has been able to point to a single statement or deed in conjunction with this situation that remotely looks like a stand on principle.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
      he was a coward, he knew he was guilty, and even though he (should) of known he was NOT going to spend a long time in prison, he took the coward's way out, did not stand up for his 'cause'. But RAN AWAY from life itself.
      
      Now there's a back bone for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - jeremy7600, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        Who are you to talk about backbone?
        
        You don't have one. Its clear from the way you don't put your name on anything, you coward.
        
        That irony is lost on NO ONE.
        
        Whats that saying about people who live in glass houses?
        
        At least he made a statement.. All you do is flail at things hoping someone will take the bait.
        
        Fuck you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        Hahahaha, you call him out anonymously?
        
        Jeremy7600? Well that narrows your identity down to a few billion. I guess you have no idea what a giant douchenozzle you look like now.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        bratwurzt (profile), 11 Mar 2013 @ 8:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        He's calling him out on his obvious hypocrisy. Pointing out hypocrisy doesn't make you a hypocrite, since you're not doing something you've called someone else out on.
        
        Example:
        1. you are dressed at a nudist beach and you're making fun out of someone else who is dressed at that same beach
        2. if I point out your hypocrisy my state of clothes is irrelevant to the point I'm making
        
        At best it's ironic.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JMT (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
      I'll assume your question is based on an ignorance of what clinical depression does to people.
      
      The point is he did not give in to the DoJ's bullying and threats by admitting guilt to felony charges he believed he was innocent of. You think he should of, which probably means you would too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:35pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        I'm not so sure about him believing he was entirely innocent. It seems he did a great deal of apologizing to JSTOR, and I think he even compensated them financially. Not exactly the conduct of someone convinced of their innocence. No, he did not plead guilty and no one knows if he would have. Nor did he defend himself and his beliefs in court. The whole episode was a sad waste and accomplished nothing. Except a lifetime of sorrow for those who loved him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        JMT (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 8:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        "It seems he did a great deal of apologizing to JSTOR, and I think he even compensated them financially."
        
        First I've heard of that, got a citation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 8:38am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
        You may want to try this service called "Google":
        
        JSTOR came over to Swartz's side after "he gave the stuff back to JSTOR, paid them to compensate for any inconveniences and apologized," Peters said.
        
        http://bigstory.ap.org/article/swartz-death-fuels-debate-over-computer-crime
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:05pm
  
  Re: Even given ALL your claims, Mike, Aaron Swartz let himself in for it.
  OOTB is a fucking freetard and ADMITS it
  
  http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111208/12500917012/riaa-doesnt-apologize-year-long-blog-cen sorship-just-stands-its-claim-that-site-broke-law.shtml
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
c.meyer (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:03pm

and there it is again
Anyone know a good demon to shut someone up? I'm ready to sacrifice that puppy now:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130307/18414322247/texas-legislator-introduces-bill-that-woul d-allow-legal-papers-to-be-served-to-peoples-social-media-accounts.shtml#c112
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Internet Zen Master (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:11pm
  
  Re: and there it is again
  Well, you could ask Satan. Apparently he's got a law office in Nashville... Not sure if he takes puppy sacrifices as compensation though.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:08pm

'The fact that he was able to mischaracterize the actions by the US Attorney's office in how they went after Swartz is really unfortunate.'

rubbish! it's out and out lying! and as stated, it's being done to cover asses! if this isn't the behaviour of a Police State, it must be as close as you can get without it being so!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
B.Manning, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:08pm

Holder, what a tool. This is what the asshole has been up to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/mar/06/pentagon-iraqi-torture-centres-link

http://www .guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/mar/06/james-steele-america-iraq-video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:12pm

as fucking if...
to the cowardly anonymouse above...

it is REALLY curious how you super-parasites, er, lawyers come on here 'debunking' shit, yet are afraid to put your name to it... (you will notice, there are a number of them who are not so afraid, why you ?)
hmmm...
wonder why that is...
(it *couldn't* be 'cause they are full of shit and are blowing smoke up us non-parasite, er, lawyer asses, is it ? ? ? say it ain't so, mouse... *snicker*)

now, to the meat of the matter: the old joke about 'how can you tell if a lawyer is lying?' 'Their lips are moving.', can apply even moreso to 'our' (sic) gummint...

given just about ANY subject, no matter how trivial, i am HIGHLY suspicious of ANY statements 'my' (sic) gummint makes...
AND, when you make it a subject which is of interest to either the preservation of their own bullshit bureaucracy, or their paymasters, then there are NO LIES too blatant and outrageous they will not tell...

in short, THEY LIE to us ALL THE TIME...
apparently, you are either incredibly naive, or a shill...
gosh, i wonder which it is...
gosh...

art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aliasundercover, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:37pm

Good Morning
>If this constitutes appropriate behaviour from the perspective of the Department of Justice, then we live in a police state.

You can see for yourself in any airport.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jenmac1000, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:42pm

re anonymous coward
I rather doubt this young man would have killed himself over five months in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:58pm
  
  Re: re anonymous coward
  Well, he did.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:54pm
    
    Re: Re: re anonymous coward
    Not really. He killed himself because he was facing much more than five months in jail.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
      Enough already. If he took the plea deal it was a few months in Club Fed and a few in a halfway house. He chose to kill himself instead. He put himself in this position and couldn't deal with the consequences.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - AB, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        You are actually willing to stand up and say that people shouldn't let their morals get in the way of doing what's best for themselves?? Wow.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        He killed himself. That's taking a moral stand? That what was best for him?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 4:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        Not being forced to go to jail for a non existent crime would have been best for him.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Niall (profile), 13 Mar 2013 @ 7:28am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        Right, so you get threatened with 7-35 years in federal prison for something you really didn't do (and let's face it, whatever he did was in no way comparable to murder, etc.) you should just suck it up and accept even 3 months in prison?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AB, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:52pm
    
    Re: Re: re anonymous coward
    You say that as if you knew him personally; as if you were his confidante. If this is so then you really need to go to the police and explain how he told you in person why he was planning to commit suicide. Otherwise your statement is pure supposition. The fact is that nobody knows for certain why he killed himself, however the evidence suggests it was because he believed he was facing major prosecution for something he didn't believe he was guilty of. Maybe all the evidence is wrong, but we have been given no reason to assume that. The only people - including psychologists - who claim it couldn't be because of the prosecution's actions are the prosecution and a handful of people who either don't have any grasp on human nature or are being paid. Or possibly (probably) both.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:47am
    
    Re: Re: re anonymous coward
    What a despicable sack of shit you are, speaking for the mind of a fucking dead man. Class act here.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:17pm
  
  Re: re anonymous coward
  Then you don't know what he was up against.
  
  A felony conviction doesn't just go away, you know.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:23pm
    
    Re: Re: re anonymous coward
    No, but in Mass. he could vote the day he walked out of the jailhouse door. He could run for office. But he couldn't own a gun.
    
    And employment-wise, he probably would have had a hard time passing a Walmart background check, but I doubt it would hinder his employability. He was among the best computer minds of his generation.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - AB, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:58pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
      And every time he looked in a mirror he would see a liar and a coward looking back at him. I take it you wouldn't have any problem doing that?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        Hanging himself and visiting a lifetime of sorrow and anguish on his loved ones is better or braver?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        AB, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        This may surprise you, but their are actually a lot of people who are prepared to die defending their beliefs. Without those people we would not have the freedoms we currently enjoy. Also, people who suffer from depression quite often believe that killing themselves will relieve their loved ones of what they themselves perceive to be a burden. I didn't know the man, so I don't claim to know what he was thinking. I am only pointing out that he there is significant reason to believe his decision to commit suicide was triggered by the treatment he received from the DOJ.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: re anonymous coward
        This may surprise you, but their are actually a lot of people who are prepared to die defending their beliefs.
        
        If that was true in this case, don't you think he would have defended his beliefs in court before taking his own life?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:46pm

How can you tell if Holder is lying?
Answer: Whenever he speaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:51pm

Gee there is actually a rule in DoJ about not withholding evidence.
See they did it enough and got sued for hiding evidence to put someone in jail when they had the evidence to raise serious questions about their claims.

The top lawyers representing Justice in this country, and there is a rule (rarely enforced and without any real penalties) to remind them to turn over all the evidence and not hide things that might hurt their case.

If someone defending someone against the Government hid a report that proved they knew what they were doing was wrong there would be sanctions and all sorts of problems... work for DoJ and well that's just how the game is played.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 12:57pm
  
  Re:
  OK, what exculpatory evidence was withheld? Why was the Assistant US Attorney not sanctioned?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 1:56pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Valid questions. I'm curious, though, why you aren't equally as meticulous and critical of the DOJ's side?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That Anonymous Coward (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 10:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jencks_Act
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brady_disclosure
    http://www .justice.gov/dag/discovery-guidance.html
    http://www.fjc.gov/public/pdf.nsf/lookup/BradyMat.pdf/$fil e/BradyMat.pdf
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-fo rensic-flaws-found-by-justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_story.html
    http://www.callawyer.com/clstor y.cfm?pubdt=NaN&eid=903325&evid=1
    http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/03/15/a-primer-on-why-schu elke-report-of-doj-misconduct-is-important/
    
    How can we trust them to hold themselves to the law when they have to be reminded to not play fast and loose with the rules?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Mar 2013 @ 7:03pm
  
  Re:
  You're right, TAC, there are rules against withholding evidence. What evidence was withheld here?
  
  On the other hand, if someone "defending against the Government hid a report that proved they knew what they were doing was wrong," there would not be sanctions and "all sorts of problems." At least not for the defendants.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:11pm

Valid questions. I'm curious, though, why you aren't equally as meticulous and critical of the DOJ's side?

You seem to have that covered. Do you really need my help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:52am
  
  Re:
  Cop out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Franssu, 8 Mar 2013 @ 2:45pm

Police state
"If this constitutes appropriate behavior from the perspective of the Department of Justice, then we live in a police state."

It's about time someone stated the obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CyberKender, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:38pm

I get he interrogation technique of applying pressure...
...to gain clues or even a confession from a criminal, but when applied like this, to an innocent individual, I keep failing to understand how what the DoJ did is really that different from when Vinnie the Fish walks into a shopkeeper's business, speaks nice about what a nice little place it is, how it would be a terrible shame if anything were to happen to it, and how, for a 'small stipend,' he can assure the shopkeeper that no such harm will come to the business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 3:54pm
  
  Re: I get he interrogation technique of applying pressure...
  an innocent individual
  
  Even his pal Larry Lessig doesn't claim that. Nor do innocent individuals hide their faces to conceal their identities or run from the cops.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AB, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:27pm
    
    or do innocent individuals hide their faces to conceal their identities or run from the cops.
    Are you serious!? You're either a hypocrite or you've lived an incredibly sheltered life.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:51pm
      
      Re: or do innocent individuals hide their faces to conceal their identities or run from the cops.
      What do you think his purpose was in hiding his face behind his bicycle helmet as he entered the server closet?
      
      Why do you think he pedaled his bike away and then jumped and ran when hailed and pursued by the cop?
      
      I mean, we are talking about a fellow of the Harvard Center For Ethics, right?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:21am
        
        Re: Re: or do innocent individuals hide their faces to conceal their identities or run from the cops.
        the picture you paint. wait, i know what it is!
        
        Its all so one sided.
        
        Wheres the other side to defend himself?
        
        He's dead.
        
        Asshole.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:54am
        
        Re: Re: or do innocent individuals hide their faces to conceal their identities or run from the cops.
        Your entire argument rests on the assumption that an innocent person has nothing to fear from the police and it could not be more fallacious.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:55am
    
    Re: Re: I get he interrogation technique of applying pressure...
    Innocent individuals that fear an oppressive government hide their faces and conceal their identities all the time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Mar 2013 @ 6:12pm
    
    Re: Re: I get he interrogation technique of applying pressure...
    Why not? The cops are not interested in your innocence, that's for the judge to decide. The cops are just interested in pinning someone for whatever they can. Or they can just decide to shoot your car because it reminds them of someone else's.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:15pm

Who's Aaron Swartz ??
who cares ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:42pm
  
  Re: Who's Aaron Swartz ??
  Someone more significant than a solar panel engineer with no sense of English grammar, darryl!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:02am
    
    Re: Re: Who's Aaron Swartz ??
    obviously Darryl has got your attention :) do you have a 'thing' for him ? bit of a bromance going on here..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prokofy Neva (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 5:27pm

You Can Seize Property from a Trespasser
Eric Holder was right to scold the media, and the copyleftist tech media starting with TechDirt and CNET have been the worst!

A press release from the DOJ describing the maximum terms for *charges* is not the same thing as a *sentence* after what we call "a trial" is heard with a judge and jury -- and adversarial defense. To keep haranguing like literalist code-is-lawyers about this concept of "35 years" merely because abstractly, yes, these are the maximum sentences under the *charges* means you don't get how the independent judiciary works. And no, Swartz wasn't "bullied" into a plea bargain, but offered such a low bargain precisely because his conduct -- as Holder explained -- was not for mercenary reasons from all indications. As Holder said, he doesn't look at the charges, he looks at the *conduct* -- the acts, not the hysterical hypotheses of you geeks looking literally at these maximum sentences. Few court cases involve maximum sentences.

As for the notion that Swartz would get 7 years if he refused to plea, there's no evidence for that, either, because again, it's what the prosecutors think they can get if they make their case -- but there are many mitigating circumstances. Holder said it was never the government's intent for him to serve 3-5 months. As for the notion that having a felony on his record would ruin his life, he should have thought of that each time he committed such giant hacks serving as a "propaganda of the deed" -- and he committed at least three of them. With all his friends like Lessig, there's no indication he would have ever been lacking in jobs or positions. To be sure, he was banned from Harvard after this big hack, and it would be interesting to know what their thinking was, if what his friends keep ranting is true, that he "had authorized access" and it was "all forgiven and JSTOR didn't press charges". So why was he banned? That's a question to ask about his conduct and intent, not just their possible "oppression" -- which seems less likely.

As for Taren Stinebrickner-Kauffman's claims that Heymann "lied," while she's understandably distraught and entitled to her grief and rage, she's not entitled to her facts. The case files published on the Internet let her know that his lawyers tried that gambit of claiming that the evidence was seized without a warrant. But citing Sanchez, the precedent case about such issues *when a person is trespassing*, then the government *can* seize the property. It was used to commit the offense, after all -- the laptop was hidden under a box in a wiring closet and logged directly into the LAN to use the system not as intended, after repeated circumvention efforts were caught and Swartz was knocked off the network. The lawyer doesn't seem to have argued successfully otherwise when Sanchez was invoked.

As for witholding exculpatory evidence, until we hear what that is, we can't make a judgement about it, and given how Swartz's girlfriend misrepresented Heymann "lying" about the "failure to get a warrant" when the feds had the right to impound property from a person committing a trespass, it's hard to accept it on good faith.

The DOJ isn't "admitting" errors because it hasn't made them. As Holder said to Coryn, in the Ted Stevens case, he found prosecutorial misconduct and overreach and he called it. If it were present in the Swartz case, he would call it, too. It wasn't. He didn't. Watch the whole video and not just the tendentious coverage of it in Huffpo and Slate:

http://nation.foxnews.com/aaron-swartz/2013/03/06/eric-holder-never-intention-aaron-swartz -go-prison-more-3-or-4-months

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2013/03/eric-holder-says-a aron-swartzs-prosecutors-did-their-job-properly.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Prokofy Neva (profile), 8 Mar 2013 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re: You Can Seize Property from a Trespasser
  Links to court documents:
  
  http://web.mit.edu/bitbucket/Swartz,%20Aaron%20Indictment.pdf
  http://tech.mit.edu/V13 2/N46/swartz/swartz-suppress2.pdf
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Mar 2013 @ 7:52pm
  
  Re: You Can Seize Property from a Trespasser
  You used fox news as a source. Your argument is deemed invalid.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:09am
  
  Re: You Can Seize Property from a Trespasser
  Swartz wasn't "bullied" into a plea bargain
  
  Really?
  
  you geeks looking literally at these maximum sentences
  
  The ones in big bold letters at the top of the DOJ press releases? Those 'literal' maximum sentences?
  
  he should have thought of that each time he committed such giant hacks serving as a "propaganda of the deed"
  
  Yes, the innocent should think about what trumped up felony charges might be level against them for the legal acts each time they commit such legal acts. I know I often consider what felony I might be charged with for my own legal activities...
  
  which seems less likely
  
  Only because you're so naive.
  
  The DOJ isn't "admitting" errors because it hasn't made them. As Holder said to Coryn, in the Ted Stevens case, he found prosecutorial misconduct and overreach and he called it. If it were present in the Swartz case, he would call it, too. It wasn't. He didn't.
  
  Because it couldn't possibly be that the DOJ doesn't think it made any errors and is just wrong. One case of Holder correctly identifying misconduct is not evidence of his infallible ability to identify it nor his willingness to identify it in a completely different case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:18am
    
    Re: Re: You Can Seize Property from a Trespasser
    Just out of curiosity, have you bothered to read the indictment? Unless you wish to continue looking like a jackass, you may want to give it a quick look.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
horse with no name, 9 Mar 2013 @ 3:17am

even first year law students know the difference between the potential prison term and reality. What Aaron faced in theory was a long, long time in prison. However, in reality, he faced a very short period of time, and prosecutors seemed very much willing to get him a very short sentence in a plea bargain that could have put all of this behind him.

It would be absolutely remarkable that Aaron didn't get basic legal advice on this. It's equally remarkable that everyone around here seems to be ignoring that basic concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:11am
  
  Re:
  The Techdirtbags live in a perpetual state of denial surrounding the many inconvenient truths disrupting their narrative. This is another on a long list.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    That this kind of activity is routine is hardly an inconvenient truth. If anything it makes the point much much stronger.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 6:12am
  
  Re:
  Sure, just ignore completely the fact that the actual complaint is that this huge disconnect between pleas and maximum sentences in cases puts disproportionate bargaining power in the hands of the prosecutors. The fact that it's a systemic problem doesn't magically make it a non-issue. It can but make it worse. That you think the systemic nature of this activity is some kind of defense is astounding.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:16am
    
    Re: Re:
    Sure, just ignore completely the fact that the actual complaint is that this huge disconnect between pleas and maximum sentences in cases puts disproportionate bargaining power in the hands of the prosecutors. ,/i>
    
    Not in the Federal system. Sentencing guidelines, not statutory maximums are what controls negotiations. The prosecutors could have asked for 100 years, but if the guidelines are 6-9 months, that's where the sentence falls. Unless of course you snitch, then you get less.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tabrez, 9 Mar 2013 @ 4:43am

Aron case
I am in doubt that such a perfect/nearest to perfect democracy can cause such injustice to a brilliant man. what has gone wrong is puzzling me. DOJ must quickly find peace of mind for lovers of Swartz the genious...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:00pm
  
  Re: Aron case
  What democracy are you talking about? The US isn't a democracy. It's a democratic republic.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 5:08am

Sadly, Aaron decided to be judge, jury and executioner, he found himself sufficiently guilty to warrant a death sentence.

Instead of standing up for his beliefs and rights, and rather than being a Cause c�l�bre
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:01pm
  
  Re:
  He committed suicide because he was sick. So are you, for using his death in your own agenda.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:30pm
    
    Re: Re:
    He committed suicide because he was sick. So are you, for using his death in your own agenda.
    
    I'm not the one publishing story after story using his tragic death to push my agenda. That would be Mike Masnick.
    
    And there's no doubt his depression was the primary factor in his suicide, there we agree. I dispute the characterization that some have claimed his suicide was due to his feelings of "guilt." My take from the comments (and personal opinion) is that he couldn't deal with the consequences of his actions. There are probably a lot of people who are arrested and cannot believe they were even capable of getting in so much trouble.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Mar 2013 @ 10:06am

You may not agree with his cause, but he did indeed fight a battle several, actually), and was indeed standing up for and fighting for what he believed was right.

Just because he lost doesn't take away from any of that.

He didn't lose. He quit. He didn't stand up. No judge, no jury, no member of the public ever heard him stand up and defend his position and repudiate the law and the case of the prosecution. The only battles were backroom negotiations over a plea bargain that bore no fruit and motions to suppress that went nowhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Any Mouse (profile), 9 Mar 2013 @ 1:06pm

Aaron Swartz's suicide
I see far too many characterizing Mr Swartz as weak and/or guilty because he took his own life. They do not care that he was a sick man, suffering from depression. They do not care just how heavy-handed the actions were against him. So many people just assume was was guilty, and that his guilt drove him over the edge. Forget for the moment that he died an innocent man, because in this country you aren't guilty until you've been judged so in the courts. Think, instead, just how twisted it is that so many people will no only decry the work he did, but call him a coward for taking his own life. That is truly sickening to me. It's the basal misunderstanding of issues within the mind. It is ignorance and fear turning to disgust and hatred. I have nothing but pity for those sorts of people that would make these disparaging remarks against him. To me it is as bad as telling a cancer patient that they aren't really sick, and they are faking it all. For highly intelligent people (or so go the claims), your minds truly are small and closed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]