[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• "Charges should not be filed simply to exert leverage to induce a plea ..." - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 10:37 AM EST

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• What you miss - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 10:41 AM EST
• What you miss - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 12:19 PM EST

The prosecutors must be able to justify the decision to charge Aaron with felony charges. It's dubious that Aaron's actions were a violation of federal laws and seem more akin to being annoying. But even granting that Aaron's actions might be a violation of federal laws, the prosecutors had to decide whether to proceed or not and that is something that deserves a public answer. Why was so important to prosecute Aaron for alleged crimes with no victims? Ortiz and her office have to explain that, i.e. what goes into their heads when they cherry pick cases.

As you quote "prosecutors should seek a plea to the most serious offense". They did precisely the opposite and charged Aaron with a large number of offenses that amount to the same action as someone who buys many lottery tickets in case one of them is the winner. That is not how a system of justice should work. They should choose the most serious alleged offense and prosecute just that. Piling charges that are equivalent is precisely bullying and intimidation.

In summary, the federal prosecutors have a lot of discretion and with that comes the responsibility of making choices that are sensible and ethical. I believe their choices were wrong in both counts: choosing to prosecute and choosing multiple charges to prosecute. I want to hear their justifications at least.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• Two decisions need justification: 1) To charge; 2) What charges - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, February 12 2013 @ 09:34 AM EST
• Two decisions need justification: 1) To charge; 2) What charges - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 11:20 AM EST

You are trying to confuse and distract.

First, you are asking to prove a negative. It is (was) up to the prosecution to prove the positive (a legal violation).

Second, any accusations of misconduct by Ortiz are standalone.

Do not attempt to conflate the two.

They are not mutually exclusive.

If fact, of the 4 combinations, it may well turn out that the misconduct occurred *because* the case of the prosecution was so poor.

A rush to judgement, and looking good, etc.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

• You have it backwards - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, February 13 2013 @ 12:08 PM EST