If US Attorney Carmen Ortiz is serious about going into politics, somebody needs to sit her down and explain a few things about the art of public relations.
First, while it helps to have a supportive spouse, said spouse should be advised to keep social media commentary to himself. Especially when said commentary is directed at the family whose sensitivities you have cited in refusing to explain yourself.
Comments
Good column, Kevin Cullen. Carmen Ortiz does have a job to do, but is she consistent? The part where her hubby rushes to her defense on Twitter still has me shaking my head. What a tragic situation.
In my opinion, Carmen Ortiz has no sense of proportion and I hope her political career is over. The electorate is sometimes too forgiving (or forgetful) for my taste but this woman should gp away (now that I think about it - where did she come from?). Although I think the actions of the US Attorneys' Office was despicable, I think MIT should not be let off the hook if it's true that Attorney Weinberg had a deal with prosecutors that did not include jail time and MIT would not agree. Although, I'm pretty sure many if not most states allow felons to vote after the sentence is served, it was unjust for many other reasons for the prosecutors to demand he plead to 13 felonies. This was by all accounts a brilliant kid with his whole life ahead of him - 23 felony convictions would have had a severe impact on his future. And for what?
I agree with you wholeheartedly. In another article about the deadly Ortiz/Swartz Debacle, I put foth the notion that MIT was merely being vindictive because a few Gasbag Professors lost some revenue on papers regarding subjects indeciferable to the Layperson. I truly believe that MIT acted from bruised egos and the Alimghty Buck.
Keep banging away, Kevin.
perfect column.
wouldnt necessarily count Ortiz out; there is no shortage of prosecutors who, used to dropping tons of bricks on fleas, hop into electoral politics. there wouldnt have been a Senator Scott Brown had there not been a Martha Coakley, another abusive prosecutor. the absolute immunity prosecutors have should be qualified at the federal and state levels. should but wont. so we'll see more bullying by the likes of Ortiz.
It is good to see that someone at the Globe is finally shining a harsh and inquiring light on what Atty. Ortiz and her office have been up to. The Swartz case is not an aberration. Sometimes when a court or government entity becomes a frequent "unattributed source" of info for the media, they are tempted to look the other way when things are not quite right.
As I wrote a few days back - one need only look at the charging profile of the entire Ortiz staff to find that what happened to Swartz was the rule and not the exception.
Ortiz' staff's attitude towards Swartz' offense was a house of mirrors' reflection of the FBI's (and maybe Justice Department's) behavior towards Whitey Bulger. Different, yes. But still arrogant and outside acceptable legal practice.
This comment has been removed.
May we please separate the issues of depression and suicide from the legal issues? Ms. Ortiz is no more responsible for Mr. Swartz's suicide than is Mr. Cullen. Mr. James Bulger is depressed. Let's cut him some prosecutorial slack. Ms. Michelle Kosilek, who has won the right to a sex-change operation, is certifiably suicidal. No sympathy shown to her either. Mr. Swartz's death is a tragedy. We do not know the underlying causes. How was Ms. Ortiz's office was "vindictive" (revengeful) towards Mr. Swartz, or do you mean that she was "mean to him?" What consideration should her office give to the victim? to members of the community who might try to and are trying to hack away at all the data in the world? Can we at least agree that Mr. Swartz committed a crime, properly legislated, and that it is Ms. Ortiz's responsibility to prosecute such crimes? Do we want to pick and choose the scope of prosecutions because we like or do not like the accused criminal? Really? I understand many of the Wall Street and mortage banking swindlers who nearly brought down the U.S. economy are real nice guys, good family men. I'm sure some of them are currently depressed, but we still want their heads on pikes. Mr. Swartz is described as a wonderful, brilliant, idealistic young man. And he kiled himself (May he rest in peace). Now everyone wants to amass their pitchforks and rakes and storm the gates of the Department of Justice. Let's just all calm down a bit. No one is ready to have a rational discussion on this topic yet.
This comment has been removed.
The points made in a couple of the comments about disfranchisement and the effects on future careers by a felony conviction should cause all of us to think carefully. Schwartz committed what appears to have been a rather dumb prank, but he was no hardened criminal. Holding even six months in jail over his head was a terrible tactic by the federal prosecutors. He probably saw it as ruining his life, hence the suicide. A lot of responsible grown ups look back and wince at their own youthful follies. There but for the grace of God go I! On the larger American scene is anyone out there upset about the fact that 2.5 million Americans are currently (right now) incarcerated? Something like 1 out of every 100 adults is now behind bars, a rate of incarceration that outdistances any civilized country. One out of every three young (17 to 35) black males is in jail, on probation or on parole. The voter suppression folks use this method to keep blacks away from the polls. That happens, and so does the terrible impact of CORI searches for job applicants. We need to look at our laws and how we deal with problems. I see too many nasty "law and order" comments posted on these pages and elsewhere. Let's find better ways to deal with drugs and other non-violent crimes. Why can't we create a better society? Why are we so mean? Is it prosecution or persecution?
This comment has been removed.
Maybe it's a show of dimentia, but there is a definite memory of reading earlier this week that U.S. Atty. Carmen Ortiz had dropped the charges against Mr. Swartz - after the man had hanged himself in Brooklyn. Yet, I see this rather bizarre move by the U.S. Attorney's office - if indeed it did happen - not being mentioned in more recent news account of this woman's unceasingly bizarre behavior.
By law, the US Attorney must drop charges directed toward a deceased person. (It's the law)
Successfully hacking into a secure file system or other information systems to PROVE that it can be done IS serious malevolence. Behavior unpunished is an incentive for other hackers to continue their quests to rip off the world, steal identity or compromise secure systems.
Carmen Ortiz's prosecutors were doing their sworn duty. Aron Swartz was mentally ill while immersed in life, death and accomplishment decisions. His tragic death was to punish those assigned to punish him. Based on the outraged reactions including the opinions of the press, he succeeded. Unfortunately, his tragedy and the outpouring of anger and sympathy worldwide is another incentive for those who seek to punish others by commiting suicide.
It's too bad that people get the impression he was "hacking into a secure file system or other information system". You should read another article explaining what actually happened.
I read it all.
The case was mishandled. The prosecutors were overreaching and lost sight of their guiding principles. She should have admitted to the error and appologized to the family. This is a tragedy that should never have happened. Her performance at the news conference was shameful!!!!!
It is a tragic end to a young life. However, and unfortunately, he was committing an offense, a crime, got caught, and Ms. Ortiz was doing her job. And now she is being faulted for doing the job that she was hired to do. Nobody could foresee that he would have committed suicide.
Thankfully, U.S. Attorney was correct in upholding the law. I will vote for her and sign any petition praising her action in the Swartz case. Swartz's family shold review their activity in aiding him with his obvious problems.
The man broke the law and the prosecutor did her job. Had she been a hard nose, she would have looked for a lot of jail time.
Where was this man's family and friends when he struggled with depression and mental health issues? Everyone seems to be placing blame on the prosecutor and this may be a way from deflecting some culpability from themselves.
If this law is so wrong, get into the legislative process and change or eliminate it. Perhaps some of you would like to amend it so that it does NOT apply to very smart people with depression who are looking to make a social justice point.
Yes, this is sad, as we lost a brilliant member of society, but placing blame on Mrs. Ortiz is wrong.
Do you think the prosecutor did her job when she let Stephen Smith plead guilty to a misdemeanor for rigging three elections and walk out of court? Mr. Swartz downloaded some obscure academic journals and was threatened with 35 years in prison. The plea deal would have made him plead guilty to the 13 charges and then do 6 months in jail. Is that fair to you? Just because you can charge, doesn't mean you do. Part of a prosecutor's job is using common sense and restraint when applying the law. Obviously, that did not happen here.
Hackers cannot go unpunished, period! Otherwise it's an incentive for others to hack more than ever (as they're doing now). Six months is reasonable.
While Ortiz ultimately holds the responsibility for the department, Assistant US Attorney Stephen Heymann was the lawyer handling the negotiations with Swartz and his attorneys. Heymann in 2008, was prosecuted another young hacker, Jonathan James, who killed himself after being named a suspect. James maintained his innocents even in his suicide note. Is it possible that Ortiz has a cowboy on her hands? Granted James was accused of hacking TJX computer and the intent was to do harm to others. While admittedly there was no criminal intent in the Swartz case. Heymann has just as much responsibility as Ortiz. They both owe the public an explanation.
If you caught someone in a closet trying to hack into your computer network would you give them a pat on the head and ask them if they're depressed? Ortiz does not make laws, but enforces those laws on the books. Where are we going if everyone wants to go with their own interpretations of law?
Did you actually read the column?? Kevin ISN'T talking aboaut letting him off scot-free. What he and others are talking about is proportionality. His linking of Schwartz's case to former state rep Stephen Smith given permission to cop a plea to a misdemeanor for far worse "crimes" is a perfect example of this. Why wasn't Aaron allowed to plead guilty to a misdemeanor instead of a felony and avoid a felony conviction like Smith? Read the column again!
Kevin,, are you suggesting making malicious prosecution actionable? How about a negligence standard? Do you have any idea how much money is wasted by negligent(unreasonable) prosecutions that arise out of political motivation or just incompetance and laziness? The criminal justice system from district cout up including probation is completely broken. Thanks for shedding some light on those who drive it. DA's, US attorneys and even Judges are the ones in charge.
Great article Cullen!
Globe, get in some freedom of information requests for communications between Ortiz's office and the WH. This kid was a thorn in the administrations side with criticism over the kill list and drone attacks. Why wasn't there as much prosecutorial zeal after the collapse of the economy? White collar criminals in jail would have set an example for other's in the banking, mortgage & finance industries.
Give the vast realm of possibily criminal activity going on every day, the single most important quality of a DA or US Attorney is judgement. This case strongly suggests that Ortiz and whoever she reports to have not shown good judgement.
Swartz through his attorney had expressed willingness to plead in such a way that a repeat of this action would have resulted in immediate jail time. How many other criminals won't be convicted or even charged because the necessary resources in the US Attorney's office in Boston were tied up trying to make an example of a guy whose actions caused no harm to others or profit to himself?
AGs and prosecutors make terrible political candidates.
On January 17, 2013, in the Boston Herald: "Ortiz: "We never intended full penalty for Swartz.," This remark is stunning. Ms. Ortiz admits and knew she never intended to go for the full penalty, yet her office held the full penalty over Aaron Swartz's head. Any reasonable person can only interpret such pressure as most unusual to achieve a result that the US attorney's office wanted, by any means necessary. Isn't that called bullying? In a January 16, 2011 story by David Boeri, (Retired Federal Judge Joins Criticism Over Handling Of Swartz Case) Ms. Ortiz said, “At the time of the indictment, [Ortiz] said, ‘Stealing is stealing.’ I saw that all the time when I was on the bench.” “This is a classic line. Stealing an apple if you’re hungry is different than Bernie Madoff. It is obviously different.” At a press conference held on January 17, 2013, Ms. Ortiz said, "We strive to be fair," we strive to be just." Is that so? Read on. As to "stealing" and Ms. Ortiz' husband's comments concerning Mr. Swartz' lawbreaking, based on my firsthand knowledge, several rogue prosecutors and the Boston FBI office bent over backwards to cover up "truly incredible," public corruption and verified crime at the Defense Contract Management Agency, subsidized by hundreds of millions taxpayer dollars. That's not an "apple." Some of the verified crime (verified by the US attorney's office and the FBI) included retaliatory frame ups, promotion fixing, fraudulent promotional certificates, sexual harassment, rigged investigations, prosecutorial misconduct, well planned discrimination and other violations. With the complicity of the US attorney's office, the perpetrators were well rewarded with quid pro quo promotions, jobs, bonuses and awards. As to my opposition in the retaliatory frame up of an elderly, sickly Hispanic female (and other violations), the chief counsel, Bruce Krasker's response was, "We (the Legal Directorate) can do anything we want. It's called gaming. We can deny, we can delay ...dismiss. We can manipulate the system any way we want." Despite 18 USC 4, which makes it mandatory to report official corruption and government crime, and FBI Director Mueller's high priority on public corruption, on two separate occasions in 2010, the US Marshals Service visited me at my place of employment at the Massachusetts trial court and told me to stop reporting verified official corruption and verified high crime in government to the US Attorney, her subordinate public corruption officer, Brian Kelly and to members of the federal bench or else. On June 16, 2011 I learned that someone at the US attorney's office placed me on a government "watch list." Isn't this bullying? Fair? Just? dougkinan@yahoo.com