[olefoo]

That is a fine display of histrionics; but, the specifics of this case DO merit removing Ms. Ortiz and her assistant Mr. Heymann from office.

Those of us who were following the case before Aaron's tragic episode knew that a great injustice was being perpetrated, but that it could not realistically be undone until after the damage had happened.

Ms. Ortiz and Mr. Heymann should be held accountable for their decision to use charges far out of proportion to the damage done. And the correct way to hold them accountable is to remove them from an office they have proven themselves incapable of using appropriately. They do not deserve to have the full power of the law behind their petty vendettas.

A Federal District Attorney in this country, at this time, has almost no checks on her power to prosecute. Petitioning the Whitehouse and the congress to remove one who has clearly overstepped the bounds of propriety is the only recourse we have.

You should sign the petition, because it is the only way that Ms. Ortiz's power will even be questioned officially. Like most online petitions it will accomplish little without a sustained campaign from many directions.

[doktrin]

I intended to up vote this (downvoted by accident as I am reading on my phone)

[tzs]

I up voted it to cancel your accidental down vote. I have never understood why HN does not let people change a mistaken vote.

[danielweber]

Stackoverflow comes close to the same thing, with big warnings if you change your vote that you can only do it once. Maybe it's to prevent us from saying "I liked your comment" and then realizing tomorrow you said something offensive and going back and downvoting all your comments out of spite.

I guess. Doesn't seem worth it, but it's the best I got.

[ISL]

Amen. Especially in a world with small touchscreens.

[rprasad]

If a great injustice really was being committed, the EFF and the ACLU would have fallen over themselves to represent Aaron pro bnono (for free). The fact they did not suggests otherwise.

[jacquesm]

So, EFF and ACLU defend you if you're not guilty and if they don't defend you you're guilty?

Do you realize that Aarons case had yet to go to trial? And that there is a good chance the EFF would have stepped in if it had? And that even if they didn't that would have said nothing about Aarons guilt or lack thereof?

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/farewell-aaron-swartz

[tptacek]

Swartz's trial was scheduled, approaching rapidly, and he had already apparently spent an enormous amount of money on at least two different firms. The trial was not something hovering nebulously in the future; Swartz's need for assistance was immediate.

I don't believe EFF's involvement or lack thereof speaks in any way to Swartz's guilt. I would say that this is the kind of thing you'd hope EFF would be right in the middle of. Were they?

[jacquesm]

Not openly afaik, which probably translates into not at all. Maybe someone should go and ask them if they were and if not why not.

I offered to contribute to Aarons defense a while ago but he declined. That may have been because he knew that any help he needed was outside of my ability to render.

Be careful, you're associating yourself with a 'known troll'.

[danielweber]

"Legal defense fund" is a fairly standard thing to have. And lawyers usually are happy to extend credit to people like Aaron and wait to be repaid later.

This doesn't eliminate the fact that trials are extremely expensive, guilty or innocent, but it slightly ameliorates it.

[jacquesm]

I think Lawrence Lessig knows a bit more about this, one line in his piece stuck out for me, it reads:

"yet unable to appeal openly to us for the financial help he needed to fund his defense".

I'm not sure what the background on that line is but it definitely makes you curious.

[jlgreco]

New method for determining guilt:

  if (respectedOrganization(lawyer.getOrganization())) {
          return INNOCENT;
  } else {
          return GUILTY;
  }