The only things that matter to these maximalist dickholes is:
* successful conviction * maximum penalty they can achieve with what they have * if you don't take the plea bargain, make you regret it
If they really hate you, they put people on 'document generation duty', which is cheaper than document review, and throw hundreds of thousands of documents at you during trial. They find the most expensive venue for you, and if you have an employer that has somehow stuck by you this long, they coerce it into letting you go.
The entire goal of this sort of thing is to deprive people of a chance to actually go to trial and stand a chance of acquittal, particularly when gaining a conviction 'honestly' is going to be difficult or expensive.
You can still find this entirely too long.
Does it matter who wrote it? It came from her office, she approved it, and therefore she said it.
Are either of those clauses accurate?
In an affadavit... yes...?
In an election... maybe?
As a press release from a prosecutors office?
Probably not.
Either you like Mrs. Ortiz or not, no one is really going to make their decision based on whether or not Aaron Schwartz believed he was facing 6 years, or 35 years.
He was looking at 6 months tops, which means serving 2 tops as a first time offender, which means probably out in a month, which means probably a suspended sentence. My advice to anyone thinking about killing themselves over spending 35 years in jail... stop watching Oz, visit someone actually in a minimum security prison, ask them what it's like, take a plea for 4 months, get some exercize, go to bed early, eat some shitty food and enjoy all the ammenities club fed has to offer for a month or two.
I think he was already depressed, the charges were weighing on him, and so were the legal fees.
If Aaron decided not to accept the guilty plea, his option was 6-7 years and not 6 months. After reading everything that has been written about him, I would assume that he won't choose a 6-month sentence in exchange for pleading guilty to liberating information.
Had the prosecutors gotten convictions on each group of charges they filed they would have pushed for 6-7 years (they have to, otherwise why take the plea?). The Federal sentencing guidelines would have recommended a sentence in the range of 1-2 years (according to Jennifer Granick of all people, who is decidedly not a fan of what happened to Aaron Swartz).
The final sentence would have been up to the judge but given the circumstances (rich; white; well-respected; first-time offense; relatively innocuous as far as effect) it's extraordinarily unlikely he would have received more than the FSG (and if he did, it would help out his case immensely on appeal).
> for pleading guilty to liberating information.
If liberating information is his goal, why wouldn't he be proud and honored to wear that particular Scarlet Letter? Do you think those branded by the Nazis for guarding Jews would be anything other than proud to show to their children and grandchildren the living proof of their taking a righteous stand when others were afraid?