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?

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'.

"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.

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.

That was a cryptic statement in the Lessig post.

We're Aarons assets frozen? Was he banned from Internet as a condition of bail?

If it was that simple, would Lessig have said so after the case became moot?

I'm confused about this too.

Either of "Aaron's lawyers were required to bill upfront" or "Aaron was not permitted to set up a legal defense fund" would be huge civil rights issues. A lot huger than the narrative of a out-of-control prosecutor out for Aaron's head.

Lessig really really needs to explain that sentence.