Police Corruption and the State Machine

Disclaimer:

Please note that I am not ‘anti-police’, ‘anti-medicine’ or ‘anti-government’.

This article is not intended to malign these institutions as a whole. It is intended to explore the issue of individual police officers, medical and psychiatric personnel, and government bureaucrats who are corrupt and abuse their power to further career, personal or other agendas.

I don’t doubt that the vast majority of police officers, medical and psychiatric personnel, and government bureaucrats are honest, decent, hard-working people with difficult jobs to do and do them ethically and exceedingly well.

The few that are corrupt, especially those in high places can do a great deal of damage not only to the targets of their corruption but to the institutions of policing, medicine, psychiatry and government as well. So this is a matter that should be of concern to those institutions as well as every individual member of those institutions.

I’ve been writing a lot about corruption lately. Probably because it really does permeate every aspect of our society.

Here in Canada, in my opinion, it’s gone to such extremes that we are now moving in line with the third world where it’s simply accepted and a given.

The only exception to this appears to be Quebec where some standards apparently do exist and recent attempts to engage in bribery and corruption have been exposed.

Montreal doctors accused of taking bribes

Ex-Laval mayor charged with gangsterism; 36 others arrested in sweep

Abuses uncovered at Montreal 'asylum' (1999)

Whether anything substantive comes out of these exposures in Quebec or whether they will simply fizzle out, allowing the corrupt to return to business as usual, remains to be seen but at least something is happening there.

Ontario, on the other hand ….

No probe into police corruption allegations

The reality is that much of this activity is already illegal. The problem isn’t that these acts aren’t recognized as illegal and often criminal acts.

The problem is that the processes in place are abused by those that society has provided with special trust like certain individual police officers, doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, government bureaucrats, politicians, intelligence agents, etc. And they are abused to further corporate, political and even personal agendas of the members of the wealthy elite and their associates, agents of influence, et al.

You and I can’t abuse these processes. We’d get caught and go to jail. But the right people with the right connections and enough money, resources to back up their demands, certainly can and have done as evidenced by the articles provided.

We are also moving in line with some of the most fascist and authoritarian states in history and the strategies they used to keep the populace from rebelling against the injustices heaped on them with impunity. Note that these strategies were also used by members of the elite to target individuals for personal reasons.

Punitive psychiatry—some debate in USA about who is and who isn't sane Or Even a paranoid has some real enemies

Concerns of Punitive Psychiatry as Government Tactic in Russia

For example, one well known and respected social activist in Toronto, has been explicitly told by a member   of the TPS that they are mentally ill. Why? Because they’re engaging in legitimate dissent. Although I’m sure the individual officer making that vile claim won’t give that as the explanation. Irrespective how they rationalize it, such claims effectively take the position that it’s ‘delusional’ to think that we have some serious problems in the political and social system we live in that are crying out to be resolved.

I don’t doubt that those particular members of the TPS who advocate this fascist and rather authoritarian position would love to do the following and we may yet see that happen in Canada, if it hasn’t happened already without our knowledge:

Kazakhstan Journalist at Risk of Forcible Psychiatric Treatment

A new psychiatric disorder has even been invented to deal with the ‘problem’ of social activists engaging in legitimate dissent, called Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

No doubt that anyone who disputes a police officer’s testimony in a court room must be delusional or mentally ill because a police officer would never perjure themselves on the stand or provide unreliable testimony for any reason now would they? And if they did we would hold them accountable for that criminal act and for betraying the special trust we’ve provided to them wouldn’t we?

Peel officers who ‘lied under oath’ won’t face criminal charges

According to this article, yes some police officers do lie under oath and no we don't always hold them accountable.

A police officer would never threaten citizens with frame-ups and false arrests now would they?

Police officer threatens to beat up man and plant cocaine on him, video shows

Apparently they would and no doubt this has actually happened to others by police officers who were lucky enough not to have been exposed on video.

Despite this reality, our Justice System, when dealing with anything from the most serious crimes to the most minor traffic infractions takes the police officer’s word as gospel when there’s a direct conflict between what the police officer says and what the defendant says.

Just like the Medical and Psychiatric system takes the word of it’s professionals as gospel when there’s a direct conflict.

Or, the government bureaucracy takes word of it’s civil servants as gospel when there’s a direct conflict.

One can argue that the defendant should have evidence to support their claims. This is true.

However, how does one defend themselves (by getting that evidence) when the police officer lies in court and the defendant is unaware that they are going to do this? Or, when Medical/Psychiatric professionals and government bureaucrats lie in Hearings and the defendant is unaware that they are going to do this?

Even if the defendant is aware that lies will be told, unless the defendant knows what lies will be told how are they to get the evidence and be properly prepared to defend themselves?

Under those circumstances, they can’t. The other side, the side that’s lying, has the unfair advantage in this system no matter which bureaucracy one is dealing with.

And since one is dealing with professionals who are lying and know the system far better than their victims, one can be sure they’ve done what they think they need to do to cover their tracks. Or, at least try to cover their tracks.

One can also argue that those professionals should also have evidence to support their claims but our system doesn’t require that they do and if they do provide evidence our system doesn’t require that it be vetted in circumstances where the word of the professional contradicts the word of the defendant.

One can hire a lawyer to ensure that evidence is provided and is vetted but even that doesn’t protect the defendant if the lawyer also doesn’t know what lies will be told and what evidence will be fabricated. The lawyer has the same disadvantage the defendant has.

As a result, it’s rare for any kind of corruption to be exposed in Canada because the state machine itself is corrupt. When it is exposed, I suspect that it’s probably because some member of the wealthy elite is ticked off at another member of the wealthy elite so out of pure spite or revenge they reveal the other’s dirty laundry. They are the only one’s who could do this and get away with it without any repercussions. Whichever one has the better connections wins. Or, a deal is negotiated behind the scenes and the scandal conveniently disappears from the air waves while the state machine looks for a way to rationalize it’s way of the situation.

Seriously. How many Canadian scandals have just disappeared into the woodwork suddenly and nothing more is heard about them? There is no follow up on how the issues were resolved assuming they were or not. This occurs no matter how irrefutable the evidence is or how strong the case is.

The solution to this sort of systemic corruption is quite simple. The professional's word should not be accepted as gospel under any circumstances. When there is a conflict in testimony there should be an automatic investigation into both the claims made by the professional and the claims made by the defendant. 

A process like this would protect everyone's rights because it would deter liars who would then also have to fabricate evidence and it would protect those telling the truth who can back up their claims. 

That won't stop evidence and witness tampering, etc. but those things would harder to set up and it would be easier for the liars to get caught in their lies when the evidence is being vetted rather than just accepted as automatically true because a police officer, doctor, mental health professional, government bureaucrat, etc. says so.

A process like this would give the ordinary citizen a fighting chance at standing up to corrupt professionals who abuse their power.

I have recently run into a personal situation where precisely the above has occurred and the entire drama is circulating around a minor traffic ticket I was issued for an offence I didn’t commit.

Details about that story in tomorrows blog.

“There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious—makes you so sick at heart—that you can't take part. You can't even passively take part. And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop. And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all.” ― Mario Savio

I'm not advocating that we shut the machine down. I still think it can be fixed. I hope I'm right.

Abuse of Power and the Corruption of Justice

There's a saying that 'power corrupts'. I don't believe that is the case. 

History has shown that people do exist who are not only not corrupt but when they attain power they respect the populace and exercise the power entrusted in them judiciously. 

This honorable aspect of human history is best enshrined by our Whistleblowers. The people who often are in positions of power, attempts are made to corrupt them or they are pressured to 'go along to get along' and they resist by exposing the corruption.

The corrupt and morally bankrupt consider those who expose their wrongdoings 'rats'.

However, the difference between the 'rat' and the whistleblower is fundamental.

A Rat is a person who is corrupt and morally bankrupt and who abuses his/her position to inflict harm where no wrongdoing has occurred. Their 'exposures' are most often lies intended to blackmail or bully others into silence or submission or create smokescreens that divert attention from the real issue.

A Whistleblower is a person who has ethical standards and will expose wrongdoing often at their own expense because the Rats are then called on to attack the Whistleblower and create a smokescreen to cover up and divert attention from the wrongdoing.

The reality is that the corrupt and morally bankrupt are attracted to positions of power because their intent from the start is to abuse their power.

The only way this can succeed is if the other halls of power like the Justice system has also been corrupted and allows them to engage in these abuses of power with impunity.

We've seen this partnership of the corrupt with the corrupted justice system and how it operates first hand in the way that the legal cases involving Julian Assange, Aaron Schwartz, Jeremy Hammond, and Bradley Manning are playing out and the impact that these abuses have had on their personal lives.

We've also seen the silence of the traditional media in the face of the outrageous violations of the civil rights of each and every one of these people.

The only way that these injustices can be stopped is by those who are ethical taking our power back.

This can be done in various ways.

Assange is running for election in Australia. Make sure he gets elected.

Don't vote for parties or politicians with a lot of money backing them who have obviously been corrupted. No the deals aren't written down. That would be illegal. The agreements are implicit and acknowledged by both sides.

Pay attention to the courts and judiciary and what they are doing. Require that all proceedings be televised and monitored so that back door injustices are reduced.

There are unethical members of the Psychiatric and Psychology communities who are starting to promote fabricated mental illnesses like 'oppositional defiance disorder' or intentionally misdiagnosing social activists as 'mentally ill'. Pay attention to this development. 

To be continued ....

Support #OpCISPABLACKOUT

Corruption and the Corrupt Among Us

NOTE: This blog post is based on a lesson learned in a recent experience with corruption and where I was morally culpable and effectively complicit by remaining silent about it. In the end, the corrupt exposed themselves while falsely accusing me of exposing them and falsely accusing me of harassing them. Neither of which I did. While the impact of this was small in the scheme of things, I believe it was an important lesson for me to learn and to share with others.

We have a serious problem today with corruption that permeates every single part of our society. The only real difference between the corruption engaged in by the “little” guy and the corruption engaged in by the wealthy elite is the impact it has on numbers of people.

The “little” guy who engages in corruption will have a negative impact on a small group of individuals or a social group. Many social activist and charitable groups are targeted by elements like this. They think they can take advantage of the good intentions of the group to further personal agendas often involving fraud not only against the targets of the fraud but against participants of the social group who make the mistake of participating, based on misrepresented good intentions . The personal financial gain of the corrupt individual instigating such campaigns is usually the ultimate goal.

How many charitable agencies have been defrauded out of their incomes in recent years? Many in Canada. The British Columbia SPCA were robbed in precisely this way by one of their own, their accountant.

How many well known social activists are targeted by smear campaigns and lies by those in their own circles? Many as well. Kevin Annett is one such example.

The atheistic communities have also been targeted by corrupt elements like this in recent years. Elements whose only agenda is to fabricate false dramas upon which they can build personal careers on the backs of and financially exploit the generosity of these communities. To accomplish this much disruption and numerous smear campaigns have occurred at their hands against individuals who have merit and have won the respect of these communities through both their actions and their words.

Then there are those who are less well known and where the corrupt individuals engaging in their disruptions are less experienced but using the same bullying and harassment strategies in an effort to destroy the reputations of innocent people.

Note I have no problem with these strategies being used to destroy the corrupt who have demonstrated their corruption and it’s provable. The issue here is that they’re being used against those who are fighting corruption and are innocent. A tangled web of deceit is weaved to cover up these corrupt activities and others are drawn in to conceal making them complicit.

On a larger scale, but with the same psychology of corruption at play, are the bankers who manipulate our global economies and governments to further their personal financial gain. This is done while demanding the implementation of policies which are ensuring the destruction of our economy and social and financial oppression of the populace who are effectively being robbed to further this end. They also use the same strategies to destroy the reputations of those who stand up to them or threaten their profit driven projects in any way.

Corruption is corruption and it’s end is always the same no matter what the means. There is personal gain for someone, somewhere in the mix at the expense of others. And this corruption is firmly founded on the morally bankrupt principle that the “ends justifies the means.”

Our world has become so corrupt that not even our governments, police and other state institutions that are supposed to be there to protect the citizen and work on our behalf can be trusted to do their jobs.

That’s not to say that everyone is corrupt amongst the rich and the poor (and everyone in between) nor would it be right to say that entire governments and their agencies are corrupt. Not in my opinion anyway.

I don’t believe that’s the case. In my opinion, there are those amongst the wealthy elite who do operate on ethical values and principles much like many of us “little” people and there are those both in government and state agencies like police and intelligence agencies who take their jobs seriously; operate on ethical values and principles and are genuinely attempting to serve and protect the citizens who pay their salaries.

We just don’t hear about these people and it’s often these people who are the one’s that get targeted, bullied and harassed out of their jobs and communities by the corrupt who are being lauded to the skies and receiving merit badges, awards and other honours for the privilege of having been bought or influenced by the right corrupt side.

On top of it all, when it comes to corruption, many of us remain silent in the face of it. Why do we do that? There are a lot of reasons for that, some personal, some social. Whatever our reasons the end result is that we become complicit in the corruption and enable it to continue if we don’t take a stand against it.

The Blue Code of police officers ensured that Christopher Dorner, a whistleblower, was persecuted out of his job and ultimately murdered by his own colleagues. At least I consider it murder. No doubt that some will find that debatable. I do not.

The numerous government cover ups of unethical and often illegal criminal activity that have been exposed after years and years are also testimony to this fact that even those innocent of any actual crime are not coming forward to expose these crimes.

It’s not surprising that Whistleblowers are finding that they are not receiving any protections when they blow the whistle on corruption because it’s the corrupt who have the power, money, and resources to ensure that they are persecuted irrespective of any legal rights they may or may not have.

Even at the lowest levels of corruption like that which occurs in the small groups in society, the benefit of doubt appears to go to the liars who continuously revise their stories, misrepresent and mischaracterize events/evidence in a self-serving manner, smear using demagogic propaganda techniques like guilt by association, recruiting “enemies” as well as bullying and harassment techniques like threats and intimidations.

So, how do we, the regular “little” people who have ethical standards and values break this cycle of corruption?

We have to take a stand everywhere we see it. At the lowest levels, in our personal interactions and at the highest levels in the corporations and institutions that are supposed to serve us.

That’s the only way we’ll put an end to it. It’s too pervasive and integrated into our culture for us to do it any other way.

We also have to start demanding valid evidence, evaluate it critically and not accept anyone’s word just based on reputation or friendship or age or whatever. We can always come up with rationalizations and excuses for remaining complicit in corruption. This will expose the liars who are attempting to cover up their corruption.

And we really need to stop putting ourselves in situations where we are complicit.

And Justice For All?

Just to be perfectly clear, I’m not a lawyer. My approach is to examine what I personally consider to be misconduct based on a layman’s interpretation of the existing legal standards and nothing more. Only a legal expert (lawyer, judge, etc.) would be qualified to determine whether an illegal act or one which constitutes misconduct has actually occurred.

That said, there have been several high profile cases in the news recently which are closely connected to demands for transparency and freedom of access to information and where corruption of our judicial system appears to be in the works.

1. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks, the site which leaks information provided by whistleblowers and/or hackers from around the world. Mr. Assange has not been charged with any crime;
2. Bradley Manning, charged with providing secret information to WikiLeaks;
3. Jeremy Hammond, charges related to the Stratfor hack; and
4. Aaron Swartz, charges related to the MIT/JSTOR hack; Mr. Swartz allegedly committed suicide and the charges against him have since been withdrawn.

 The specific charges don’t really matter in this context. What matters is how each of these cases are being/were handled by the Prosecution and/or Judge involved.

Julian Assange

In between WikiLeaks first major public release of data and their second major public release of data, Mr. Assange was investigated for alleged and very minor sex “crimes”. Acts so minor that they would not be considered crimes in most other countries and which rest almost entirely on personal testimony rather than objective, verifiable evidence. Mr. Assange was interviewed while in Sweden regarding those claims, no charges were laid and Mr. Assange’s freedom to leave Sweden was not restricted.

I could get into the sheer stupidity of these particular laws which allowed this situation to occur but I’m going to leave that alone for now. Anyone who knows the specifics knows how completely idiotic this entire thing is from start to finish. All I can say is that I strongly suggest that any male visiting Sweden not make the mistake of having sex there. Seriously.

Around the time of the second major leak, while Mr. Assange was in London, UK, the Prosecutor claimed that a second interview was required. Mr. Assange agreed to the interview but wanted to remain in the UK and either conduct it through a video feed or have the Prosecutor come to the UK to conduct it.

Mr. Assange was well within his rights to make such a request and the acceptance or denial of the request was a matter of Prosecutorial discretion. That is the prosecutor could have acceded to the request but wasn’t required to by law.

The Prosecutor exercised their discretion by insisting that the interview had to be conducted in Sweden but provided no explanation as to why this was necessary.

Meanwhile, it was discovered through the Stratfor hack that a Grand Jury had met in the US and had secretly indicted Mr. Assange.

The only reasonable conclusion one can come to which might explain the Prosecutor’s refusal to accede to the reasonable accommodations requested by Julian Assange, is that Sweden has agreed to extradite him to the US to face the charges laid against him there.

Is this Prosecutorial misconduct? And on what grounds?

“Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice.” (See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

In my opinion, if Sweden is using Prosecutorial discretion as their means of trying to get Julian Assange back to Sweden on false grounds (the allegations made against him for which he hasn’t been charged) and in order to act against him by extraditing him to the US it certainly would “violate …  the ethical standards of law practice”.

In order to restore the confidence in and perception of justice of the Swedish legal system all the Swedish Prosecutor has to do is interview Assange by video from the Ecuadorian Embassy and then either charge him or drop the charges.

The misconduct here and potential for further misconduct is patently obvious if they continue to refuse this reasonable and simple solution.

Bradley Manning

Bradley Manning, a member of the US military, was arrested and charged with allegedly leaking secret information to WikiLeaks.

He was held in what can only be described as tortuous conditions for nine months between, July 2010 and April 2011. He continues to be held without bail and awaiting trial. He was arrested in May, 2010 and his trial has will begin in June, 2013 after pre-trial hearings in February, 2013 are complete. (Trial Date Correction. 2013.01.23)

In this case Prosecutorial discretion was invoked in determining the charges which, according to the defense amounted to an attempt to intimidate Mr. Manning into testifying against Julian Assange by overcharging him based on overstating the alleged harm that occurred.

According to the Prosecution it’s perfectly acceptable to exaggerate charges and keep someone in prison without bail for approximately 2 years and 7 months. It will be over 3 years by the time the case is finally heard. A final ruling on whether the case will be dismissed on the grounds that it violates Manning's right to a speedy trial will be made at the end of February. (Correction based on new information)

Are these the “ethical standards of law practice” that the US commonly adheres to or are they simply acceptable depending on who the defendant is?

Jeremy Hammond

Jeremy Hammond’s case is perhaps the clearest of all.

Mr. Hammond was charged for the Stratfor hack.

Ironically, the Trial Judge was the spouse of a Stratfor client who has apparently and to date refused to recuse herself from the case. She insists it be dealt with in court.

If this Trial Judge does not recuse herself, in my opinion, it will be a clear and obvious case of Judicial Misconduct for which she should be removed from the bench.

“The recusal of a judge may be requested:

Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;”

(See detailed definitions at the end of the post).

 Aaron Swartz

Aaron Swartz is the saddest of all.

Mr. Swartz was charged with the JSTOR/MIT hack.

According to his family, Mr. Swartz was pursued by the Prosecution to such a degree that he committed suicide. Apparently this is the second Hacker this particular Prosecutor has driven to suicide.

The fact that two of this Prosecutor’s defendants meet the same fate says a lot about how he handles his cases and defendants in general. And while it’s possible that this isn’t technically considered misconduct one has to wonder why it’s not acceptable to do the following to witnesses and which is considered misconduct:

“Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;”

 But it’s apparently okay to do that to the defendant? How is one an “ethical standard of law practice.” and the other not?

One of the most basic premises in law is supposed to be “presumed innocent until proven guilty” so how do we rationalize treating defendants like criminals before they’ve been convicted, or in the case of Julian Assange before he’s even been charged with anything?

“Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.” --Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Definitions ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presumption of Innocence

A legal presumption that benefits a defendant in a criminal case and which results in acquittal in the event that the prosecutor does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Any person charged with an offence has the right ... to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.

Rule of Law Definition:

That individuals, persons and government shall submit to, obey and be regulated by law, and not arbitrary action by an individual or a group of individuals.

Due Process Definition:

Fundamental procedural legal safeguards of which every citizen has an absolute right when a state or court purports to take a decision that could affect any right of that citizen.

Prosecutorial Discretion:

Discretionary powers exercised by the government's prosecution service such as whether to prosecute charge recommended by police, to stay an ongoing proceeding, plea bargaining, or the taking over of a private prosecution.

Prosecutorial Misconduct:

Prosecutorial misconduct is conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of law practice. Examples, among others, may include:

Courtroom misconduct (making improper remarks or improperly introducing evidence designed to prejudice the jury: violating rules regarding selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments);
Hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records;
Failing to disclose evidence that might tend to exonerate the defendant
Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses;
Presenting false or misleading evidence;
Selective or vindictive prosecution
Denial of a speedy trial rights
Use of unreliable and untruthful witnesses and snitches

Judicial Misconduct

Conduct on the part of a judge that is prohibited and which could lead to a form of discipline.

.... conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts, or (an inability) to discharge all the duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability.

(A) judge's conduct must be free from impropriety and the appearance of impropriety and that both his official and personal behavior be in accordance with the highest standard society can expect. The standard of conduct is higher than expected of lay people and also higher than that expected of attorneys. The ultimate standard must be conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office, and judges must so comport themselves as to dignify the administration of justice and deserve the confidence and respect of the public.

Examples:

The use of a harsh and angry tone and demeanor,
Excessive arrogance,
Lack of impartiality,
Incompetence,
Improper political or even charitable or fund-raising activities,
Sexually harassing conduct,
Off-the-record, private communication with a litigant about a pending case,
Criminal conduct,
Conflict of interest,
An ethnic or racial slur,
Physical or mental disability,
Bankruptcy or insolvency,
Misuse of prestige of office,
Allowing cameras in the courtroom,
Receiving a bribe or gift from a litigant,
Making it public comment on a pending case or which shows prejudgment
Failure to recuse oneself in an appropriate case, and
Administrative mismanagement such as a failure to render a judgment in a reasonable amount of time.

Recusal

The recusal of a judge may be requested:

    Where he himself or his spouse has a personal interest in the dispute;

    Where he himself or his spouse is the creditor, debtor, presumed heir or donee of one of the parties;

    Where he himself or his spouse is related by blood or marriage with one of the parties or his or her spouse up to the fourth degree of kinship inclusive;

    Where there have been or have proceedings between himself or his spouse and with one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where he has, previously, had knowledge of the matter in the capacity of a judge or arbitrator or where the has counseled one of the parties;

    Where the judge or his spouse is entrusted of the administration of the property of one of the parties;

    Where there exists a link of subordination between the judge or his spouse and one of the parties or his or her spouse;

    Where there has been a notorious friendship or enmity between the judge and one of the parties....

"The party who wishes to recuse a judge shall have, on pain of inadmissibility, to do so as soon as he has knowledge of a ground of recusal.

"In no case may the request for recusal be made after the end of the oral arguments."

All of the above definitions are American. However, since American and Canadian law is somewhat based on British law I don’t expect the definitions to differ too greatly between countries nor have I bothered to check.

These definitions are intended to be nothing more than a general guide to this discussion.

In Memoriam. Aaron Swartz

Click on the image to enlarge and read

Official Statement from the Family and Partner of Aaron Swartz:

Our beloved brother, son, friend, and partner Aaron Swartz hanged himself on Friday in his Brooklyn apartment. We are in shock, and have not yet come to terms with his passing.

Aaron’s insatiable curiosity, creativity, and brilliance; his reflexive empathy and capacity for selfless, boundless love; his refusal to accept injustice as inevitable—these gifts made the world, and our lives, far brighter. We’re grateful for our time with him, to those who loved him and stood with him, and to all of those who continue his work for a better world.

Aaron’s commitment to social justice was profound, and defined his life. He was instrumental to the defeat of an Internet censorship bill; he fought for a more democratic, open, and accountable political system; and he helped to create, build, and preserve a dizzying range of scholarly projects that extended the scope and accessibility of human knowledge. He used his prodigious skills as a programmer and technologist not to enrich himself but to make the Internet and the world a fairer, better place. His deeply humane writing touched minds and hearts across generations and continents. He earned the friendship of thousands and the respect and support of millions more.

Aaron’s death is not simply a personal tragedy. It is the product of a criminal justice system rife with intimidation and prosecutorial overreach. Decisions made by officials in the Massachusetts U.S. Attorney’s office and at MIT contributed to his death. The US Attorney’s office pursued an exceptionally harsh array of charges, carrying potentially over 30 years in prison, to punish an alleged crime that had no victims. Meanwhile, unlike JSTOR, MIT refused to stand up for Aaron and its own community’s most cherished principles.

Today, we grieve for the extraordinary and irreplaceable man that we have lost.
_____

Aaron’s funeral will be held on Tuesday, January 15 at Central Avenue Synagogue, 874 Central Avenue, Highland Park, Illinois 60035. Further details, including the specific time, will be posted at http://rememberaaronsw.com/, along with announcements about memorial services to be held in other cities in coming weeks.

Remembrances of Aaron, as well as donations in his memory, can be submitted at http://rememberaaronsw.com/