DOJ Increased Charges vs Swartz Because Internet Community Rallied for Him

[roo_ster]

http://pjmedia.com/blog/report-doj-elevated-its-charges-against-swartz-because-internet-community-rallied-on-his-behalf/?singlepage=true

Report: DOJ ‘Elevated Its Charges’ Against Swartz Because Internet Community Rallied on His Behalf

In January 2011, Reddit co-founder and RSS creator Swartz, who lobbied for freedom of information on the web, was arrested for downloading millions of academic articles from the digital library Journal Storage (JSTOR) in protest of the weighty fees charged for accessing articles, and those dollars going to publishers instead of writers.

“We need to take information, wherever it is stored, make our copies and share them with the world,” Swartz wrote in 2008. “We need to take stuff that’s out of copyright and add it to the archive. We need to buy secret databases and put them on the Web. We need to download scientific journals and upload them to file sharing networks.”

JSTOR declined to pursue any civil action against Swartz, and even eventually made millions of its articles accessible to the public free of charge. “Aaron returned the data he had in his possession and JSTOR settled any civil claims we might have had against him in June 2011,” JSTOR said in a statement “mourning this tragic loss” after Swartz’s death.

The Justice Department, though, slapped Swartz with charges including wire fraud and computer fraud, altogether carrying the possibility of 35 years behind bars and up to a $1 million fine. Prosecutors eventually offered Swartz a deal to avoid trial in which he’d have to plead guilty to all 13 charges and spend six months behind bars.

Two days later, on Jan. 11, 2013, Swartz hung himself in his Brooklyn apartment. He was 26 years old.

“The prosecutor said that the straw that broke the camel’s back was that when he indicted the case, and allowed Swartz to come to the courthouse as opposed to being arrested, Swartz used the time to post a ‘wild Internet campaign’ in an effort to drum up support. This was a ‘foolish’ move that moved the case ‘from a human one-on-one level to an institutional level.’ The lead prosecutor said that on the institutional level cases are harder to manage both internally and externally.”

“The report also indicates that the Department elevated its charges against Swartz in response to an Internet campaign conducted by Demand Progress in support of Swartz at the time of his arrest,” Issa continued. “…The suggestion that prosecutors did in fact seek to make an example out of Aaron Swartz because Demand Progress exercised its First Amendment rights in publicly supporting him raises new questions about the Department’s handling of the case.”

DOJ prosecutors and prosecutors in general do themselves no service with this sort of behavior.  We must remove their sovereign immunity and the concept of sovereign immunity altogether.  Where else to we give men great authority and then make it impossible to hold them accountable for their actions in such a manner?

[Jocassee]

The Process is the Punishment.

[T.O.M.]

I really think there needs to be some protections from crap civil suits, but not complete and blanket immunity.  First time I was sued by a defendant for a laundry list of torts, including loss of consortium, because I prosecuted him for a burglary where he was caught in the home, by the homeowner, who was coming home from deer hunting. NYep, held him on scene until the deputies arrived.  Sovereign immunity saved me from having to spend a big chunk to defend myself.  Second time, a family sued me after I prosecuted their 18 year old son for felony assault.  His football scholarship offers dried up after he was a convicted violent felon.  Again, sovereign immunity saved me.  They were seeking $500,000 in lost educational expenses, and

I'm fine with allowing the suits to proceed if there's evidence of misconduct by a prosecutor, like concealing evidence.  But I cannot imagine allowing the suits to proceed against a prosecutor because he got a proper conviction.

[HankB]

I'm fine with allowing the suits to proceed if there's evidence of misconduct by a prosecutor, like concealing evidence.  But I cannot imagine allowing the suits to proceed against a prosecutor because he got a proper conviction.

Agreed. But in instances of misconduct and malfeasance there shouldn't be immunity for ANY government official.

[Scout26]

He made the Gestapo look bad. Zat vill nichts be tolerated, Ja..

And yes, the prosecutors should be held to account.  Ramping up the charges because people spoke out.  They need to hung as well.

[dogmush]

I'm fine with allowing the suits to proceed if there's evidence of misconduct by a prosecutor, like concealing evidence.  But I cannot imagine allowing the suits to proceed against a prosecutor because he got a proper conviction.

Who decides what a proper conviction is?  [/devils advocate]

Seriously though, I bet I could find plenty of folks, even in the legal system, that would argue anything done to throw Zimmerman in jail would have been "proper".

[T.O.M.]

Who decides what a proper conviction is?  [/devils advocate]

Seriously though, I bet I could find plenty of folks, even in the legal system, that would argue anything done to throw Zimmerman in jail would have been "proper".

Fair enough.  My worry, having sat in that chair, is that some of the more intelligent criminals try to use the civil courts as a weapon to not attack "the prosecution," but the individual prosecutor.  A child molestor in our county filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the assistant prosecutor handling the case, then filed leins on her home and all of their vehicles.  Then, he filed to have her wages held in escrow as possible payment of a judgment in his favor.  In this case, he liked to tape his molestations, and I saw some of the tapes.    Unfortunately, brain bleach hasn't been invented yet.  His convictions were proper.

That said, I cannot think of a way in which any conviction at trial would ever be deemed "proper," because the defendant will contest that finding.  And that is where I absolutely agree with all of you that a prosecutor, magistrate, or judge who violates the public trust that goes with the position should be not only stripped of the job, but also criminally prosecuted.  The jobs have so much power that could be abused, and anyone who takes advantage of that to the detriment of others is worse than most of the criminals whose cases crossed his/her desk.

[RevDisk]

Who decides what a proper conviction is?  [/devils advocate]

Seriously though, I bet I could find plenty of folks, even in the legal system, that would argue anything done to throw Zimmerman in jail would have been "proper".

Fair enough.  My worry, having sat in that chair, is that some of the more intelligent criminals try to use the civil courts as a weapon to not attack "the prosecution," but the individual prosecutor.  A child molestor in our county filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the assistant prosecutor handling the case, then filed leins on her home and all of their vehicles.  Then, he filed to have her wages held in escrow as possible payment of a judgment in his favor.  In this case, he liked to tape his molestations, and I saw some of the tapes.    Unfortunately, brain bleach hasn't been invented yet.  His convictions were proper.

That said, I cannot think of a way in which any conviction at trial would ever be deemed "proper," because the defendant will contest that finding.  And that is where I absolutely agree with all of you that a prosecutor, magistrate, or judge who violates the public trust that goes with the position should be not only stripped of the job, but also criminally prosecuted.  The jobs have so much power that could be abused, and anyone who takes advantage of that to the detriment of others is worse than most of the criminals whose cases crossed his/her desk.

Bingo. While blanket sovereign immunity has proven to be a very bad thing, we'd run the opposite problem with zero sovereign immunity. Police and prosecutors would become bankrupt within a week without any sovereign immunity from proven, 100% guilty criminals and/or their scumbag enablers.

I'd personally say that if the person is found guilty, and appeals still finds them essentially guilty, there should be sovereign immunity. For persons found innocent and/or charges are dropped, the bar should be set high, but not impossibly high, of proving that the party reasonably knowingly did something illegal or unethical, beyond common practice. Sure, it means you can't sue Select Intelligence Committee members for intentionally and knowingly violating your 4th Amendment rights, but they'd still have to prove that their illegal activity was common practice. Maybe given leeway for a judge to say, "Fine, it was common practice, but from here on out, you are no longer covered. Illegal wiretapping is no longer allowed, and anyone doing so loses their civil immunity."

[RevDisk]

I'd also like to thank Chris in a public fashion. We all really appreciate your perspective, especially when we vocally disagree with the status quo. When we criticize the legal system, I do hope you realize that no one here lumps you into it. You're a good magistrate, as well as a good person. The folks in your jurisdiction are lucky to have you. I hope they appreciate that as much as we do.

At some point, I really would like to buy you a beer in appreciation. If that's not an ethics violation.   

[T.O.M.]

I'd also like to thank Chris in a public fashion. We all really appreciate your perspective, especially when we vocally disagree with the status quo. When we criticize the legal system, I do hope you realize that no one here lumps you into it. You're a good magistrate, as well as a good person. The folks in your jurisdiction are lucky to have you. I hope they appreciate that as much as we do.

At some point, I really would like to buy you a beer in appreciation. If that's not an ethics violation.   

It's a rare occassion when I take offense to any post around here, but big thanks, Rev. Tough week on the job, covering a child abuse/neglect docket.  Next time I head into your neck of the woods, I'll touch base with you. You're not in my jurisdiction, so I don't think one beverage would stain my integrity and honor.

[Scout26]

I'd also like to thank Chris in a public fashion. We all really appreciate your perspective, especially when we vocally disagree with the status quo. When we criticize the legal system, I do hope you realize that no one here lumps you into it. You're a good magistrate, as well as a good person. The folks in your jurisdiction are lucky to have you. I hope they appreciate that as much as we do.

At some point, I really would like to buy you a beer in appreciation. If that's not an ethics violation.   

I'd like to heartily second this.  The sad fact is there aren't enough Chris's in this country, doing the right thing and making the hard decisions (And having to view truly disgusting evidence) to go around in this country.  I've very, very rarely disagreed with him and truly admire the work he does and respect his insight and points of views and insights on the various subjects that arise here.   We are lucky to have him here.

[Fitz]

Agree with scout and rev

[T.O.M.]

Thanks guys.  Nice to be appreciated here since I ain't feeling the love at work today.

[SADShooter]

Thanks guys.  Nice to be appreciated here since I ain't feeling the love at work today.

Nothing like a job where everyone expects something from you, and many/most don't like what they get. Keep up the good fight.

[Tallpine]

Nothing like a job where everyone expects something from you, and many/most don't like what they get. Keep up the good fight.

Satisfaction guaranteed or we will double your sentence 

[T.O.M.]

Satisfaction guaranteed or we will double your sentence 

Wish it was that simple.  Political backstabbing from someone I thought was a friend.  Trying to put me inhot water becuase I told a father I agreed that people using firearms instupid/criminal ways often results in infringement on our rights.  Reported to my supervising judge as some kind of expression of sympathetic feelings for militia groups.  He doesn't bother to do anything but chew my ass for making stupid statements that will haunt him in an election year, that he cannot afford tobe linked with crazy militia/prepper types.

Remind me again why I want to run for judge?

[SADShooter]

Wish it was that simple.  Political backstabbing from someone I thought was a friend.  Trying to put me inhot water becuase I told a father I agreed that people using firearms instupid/criminal ways often results in infringement on our rights.  Reported to my supervising judge as some kind of expression of sympathetic feelings for militia groups.  He doesn't bother to do anything but chew my ass for making stupid statements that will haunt him in an election year, that he cannot afford tobe linked with crazy militia/prepper types.

Remind me again why I want to run for judge?

Um, to avoid/prevent the dumbassery you just described?