
Carmen Ortiz’s Sordid Rap Sheet - pccampbell
http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/
======
malandrew

      "According to the sworn testimony of a DEA agent operating
      out of Boston, it was his job to comb through news stories 
      for properties that might be subject to forfeiture. When he 
      finds a likely candidate, he goes to the Registry of Deeds, 
      determines the value of the property in question, and refers 
      it to the U.S. attorney for seizure."
    

Seriously? We, as taxpayers, indirectly support a job like that? That's
disgusting. I'm shocked we have someone actively combing to discover assets
the government might be able to seize in court. I'm further shocked that the
accused is under the obligation to prove innocence instead of the other way
around. That's not due process.

~~~
InclinedPlane
Yup. And it's been that way since the '80s. Welcome to the drug war.

Today's quiz in remedial civics: what happens when law enforcement gains the
power to control their own funding depending on the way they enforce the law.

P.S. If you'd like a bit of disheartening theater, read this:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_v._$124,700>

~~~
saraid216
> Today's quiz in remedial civics: what happens when law enforcement gains the
> power to control their own funding depending on the way they enforce the
> law.

Market-driven police state?

~~~
nirvana
Police operate using violence. Markets operate with free exchange. Thus you
posit a contradiction.

~~~
saraid216
> Thus you posit a contradiction.

What is the sound of one hand clapping?

------
pygy_
The petition asking for Heymann firing still lacks 15.000 votes. From what I
read he was more instrumental than Ortiz in the aggressiveness the
prosecution.

[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-..).

Sorry for insisting, but I think it's important. I'm not a US citizen, and I
can't vote, the only thing I can do is trumpet it.

Not that the witch hunt is very useful in itself, but it keeps people involved
and the more shit we stir, the most likely things will move.

~~~
pygy_
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-
us-...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/fire-assistant-us-attorney-
steve-heymann/RJKSY2nb)

Here's the correct link (too late to edit).

Also, you don't have to be a US citizen to sign (I just read the TOS)!

Thanks to mavhc for pointing out these.

~~~
pccampbell
This is a huge, folks. Please, sign.

------
RyanMcGreal
The way US prosecutors operate - piling on large numbers of felony charges
with decades in maximum sentencing and offering a shorter sentence in exchange
for a guilty plea - is a clear violation of the 8th Amendment.

It's functionally equivalent to using the threat of torture to extract a
confession.

<http://quandyfactory.com/blog/103>

~~~
monochromatic
_a clear violation of the 8th Amendment_

Is that your legal opinion? You know, there are centuries of jurisprudence
exploring the meaning of various constitutional provisions...

~~~
efsavage
You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion.

And yes, there are centuries of jurisprudence, but it is always changing,
evolving, and sometimes even reversing to meet the needs of the present.

~~~
monochromatic
_You don't need to be a lawyer to have a valid "legal" opinion._

That's true in the same way that _a broken clock is right twice a day_ is
true.

------
i4i
"Between 1989 and 2010, an estimated $12.6 billion was seized by US Attorneys
in asset forfeiture cases. The growth rate during that time averaged +19.4%
annually. For just 2010 alone, the value of assets seized grew by +52.8% over
2009 and was six times greater than the total for 1989."
<http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/forfeiture>

------
wereHamster
"and—under civil law—the burden of proof is on the defense to demonstrate
their property is innocent."

Really? I thought the burden of proof was on the prosecution side to
demonstrate guilt.

~~~
Spooky23
With asset forfeiture, in effect your property is arrested, and property does
not have civil rights.

One well known case in the early 90's was an old black gentlemen who owned a
plant nursery, and was detained at an airport for the crime of being black and
in possession of $30,000. I think the story was featured on 60 Minutes and the
NY Times.

The guy was the son of a sharecropper, was illiterate, did not use checks or
credit cards. He had flown from his home to Texas every year with a bag of
money to buy plants to ship north to sell after becoming too old to drive. He
wasn't committing a crime, so he wasn't arrested -- but his money was kept as
it was considered suspicious by the Federal authorities. It was a catch-22
situation, as litigating against the Feds will cost alot more than $30k.

~~~
jacquesm
'Flying while black'... disgusting.

~~~
pstuart
Just like 'driving while black', or 'walking down the sidewalk while black' --
equally disgusting.

But hey, it doesn't affect me directly so why should I care? /s

------
chris_wot
When I first heard about Carmen Ortiz, I realised there was very, very little
I could do about it, given I am not a U.S. citizen.

A few days later, more out of frustration, I created the following meme:

[http://memecrunch.com/meme/DV7N/carmen-ortiz-for-great-
justi...](http://memecrunch.com/meme/DV7N/carmen-ortiz-for-great-justice)

Image is here:

[http://memecrunch.com/meme/DV7N/carmen-ortiz-for-great-
justi...](http://memecrunch.com/meme/DV7N/carmen-ortiz-for-great-
justice/image.png)

Hopefully someone here finds it darkly amusing.

~~~
DoubleMalt
I share your concern about Carmen Ortiz' fitness for being at a position where
she holds any power whatsoever over people. But your meme distracts from the
real sinister elements of the system that are outlined in the article. It is a
strawman argument that is easily dismissed, which is detrimental to the
discussions.

The system incentivizes abuse of power and coercion of suspects. No one in the
system is honestly interested in absurdly high sentences. hey are only
interested in "winning", which is the main problem.

Competitiveness has its place in sport, in the economy and at hackathons.

But a trial should NEVER be a competition. I am aware that the legal system in
many countries devolved to this. BUt we should not rest to attack this aspect.

------
DanBC
This thread has some comment about the motel case.
(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5084791>)

------
ScottBurson
Don't overlook the last paragraph.

~~~
bambax
Yes!

> _Thanks to tough-on-crime laws and mandatory-minimum sentencing, prosecutors
> are able to extort—if they so choose—a quick end to the proceedings and a
> headline-worthy admission of guilt._

"Tough-on-crime" is the real culprit -- and it's what a strong majority of
Americans support.

~~~
nirvana
They want toughness on violent crime, not government agents perpetrating
crimes for their own benefit.

These agents _profit_ from destroying people's lives, and they _Break the law_
when they do so.

The problem is, who is going to prosecute the prosecutors? Whose going to
collect evidence? The police who enjoy protection by prosecutors? The judges
who work for the same employer?

~~~
mercurial
But it's all a balancing act. If you vote for a system where disproportionate
penalties are possible, and the incentive to use it as leverage to secure
convictions is built into the system, don't be surprised of the consequences:
it's perfectly predictable. Remove disproportionate sentences and mandatory
minimums, and prosecutes won't be able to exert the same pressure.

------
c3d
No mention of Kim Dotcom or Julian Assange in the story. But that seems like
higher-profile cases with the same kind of bullying tactics.

~~~
fleitz
Her behaviour is by no means uncommon which is why the press is having no
problem digging up other cases in which she leveraged the resources of the
state against those who were defenceless.

Don't think she's particularly evil, she's your everyday average prosecutor.

~~~
javajosh
I don't understand why people keep saying this as if it's an excuse. Just
because everyone does it doesn't make it not evil. When slave-owning was legal
in this country, it was still evil.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
If it was just her, she would have already been assassinated; the cops would
have shook their heads and turned a blind eye because hey, she did need
killin'.

By getting mad at her personally, you are in effect becoming Timothy McVeigh.
He took out an entire building full of feds and _nothing happened_. I'm not
even sure that carpet nuking Washington, D.C. would put a dent in federal
overreach. It's a mass social movement, not a breakdown of part of the system.

~~~
chris_wot
Good Lord, am I ever glad you are being downvoted to oblivion. _Nobody_ so far
has suggested assasination or terrorism to solve these problems. You are the
first (and hopefully the last) to suggest this as a solution.

~~~
Daniel_Newby
D you even read my comment? No, you did not. You read the word "assassinated",
then turned off your logic to indulge in an unregulated emotional response.

At no point did I suggest that anybody be harmed.

So go read my comment.

...

Now, what you read was a conditional statement. The article claims that
prosecutor Ortiz is a bad seed, a "lone gunman theory" of a rogue lawyer who
conducts legal lynchings on her own accord.

What I replied is that _IF_ that hypothesis were true, she would have been
taken out long ago. A lone psychopath simply cannot go around destroying
people's lives in broad daylight. If nothing else, the widow of one of her
victims will do her in. Since she still breathes, the rogue prosecutor theory
is conclusively disproven.

Read the next paragraph of my comment.

Now, Timothy McVeigh had a rogue government theory, just like the article we
are discussing. He thought that if you could just prune back the feds a bit,
do a little gardening, that they would get the message. He obviously failed.
If anything, he made them stronger and more determined. So the theory that
government overreach has anything to do with individual government employees
is very conclusively disproven.

Logically, then, if you believe that naming and shaming prosecutor Ortiz will
help, you are making the same mistake as Timothy McVeigh, and for the same
reasons. The correlation of Ortiz's actions with Aaron's outcome does not
imply causation.

You are glad I am being downvoted into oblivion. Of course you are. You are
part of the system, and the system defends itself against strong statements
about how things actually work. You and your downvoting friends are antibodies
trying to maintain the status quo. You are part of the vast social movement
that has given us asset forfeiture and national bunny rabbit police.

~~~
chris_wot
Faulty logic. If she was an out of control lawyer, then it does not
necessarily follow she would have been "taken out".

------
pccampbell
I'm in MA, and what really drives me crazy is that local TV news sources have
basically made it sound like she's going to still try running for MA Governor.
Essentially, she's using her public statement to sugar coat and bury the story
amongst folks that aren't familiar with Aaron.

------
rusodepaso
The arrogance and basic lack of human decency, on the part of Carmen Ortiz and
her lackeys, are really stunning. Aaron Swartz is not the only case her office
mishandled: see Carmen Ortiz’s Sordid Rap Sheet,
[http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-
sh...](http://whowhatwhy.com/2013/01/17/carmen-ortizs-sordid-rap-sheet/)

Petition the Obama administration to: Remove United States District Attorney
Carmen Ortiz from office for overreach in the case of Aaron Swartz
[https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-
stat...](https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/remove-united-states-
district-attorney-carmen-ortiz-office-overreach-case-aaron-swartz/RQNrG1Ck)

------
barking
It doesn't sound quite so paranoid anymore to arm oneself to the teeth and
retreat to a wilderness redoubt in Montana.

------
venomsnake
The ceasing of the property - doesn't that make Mrs Ortiz guilty of RICO
herself?

