Search results
In United States of America v. Aaron Swartz, Aaron Swartz, an American computer programmer, writer, political organizer and Internet activist, was prosecuted for multiple violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), after downloading academic journal articles through the MIT computer network from a source for which he had an ...
- United States of America v. Aaron Swartz
- Aaron Swartz
Dec 18, 2018 · SUMMARY ORDER. Christopher Swartz appeals from a judgment of conviction entered July 19, 2017 for one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.
1 It is important to note that a jury rejected some of these key facts by virtue of its verdict finding Swartz not guilty of second-degree murder, and the falsity of many others was proved during the criminal trial. United States v. Swartz, Dist. Ct. Doc. No. CR15-1723 (D. Ariz.).
In United States of America v. Aaron Swartz, Aaron Swartz, an American computer programmer, writer, political organizer and Internet activist, was prosecuted for multiple violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA), after downloading academic journal articles through the MIT computer network from a source ( JSTOR) for which he ...
Mar 3, 2013 · UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. AARON SWARTZ, Defendant. Description of Offense Charged: 18 USC 1343 Wire Fraud. 18 USC 1030(a)(4) Computer Fraud
- Larissa Macfarquhar
United States, but J.A. was in Mexico when Swartz’s bullets struck and killed him. Swartz did not know J.A.’s citizenship or whether he had substantial connections to the United States, so for all Swartz knew, J.A. could have been an American citizen. Swartz moved to dismiss the complaint based on qualified immunity. He conceded that ...
United States District Court for the District of Arizona against Agent Swartz in his individual capacity, alleging that his use of unjustified deadly force violated Jose’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution.
