Slashdot Mirror


Hector Xavier Monsegur, Aka Sabu, Dodges Sentencing Again

hypnosec writes "Ex-LulzSec leader Hector Xavier Monsegur, aka Sabu, has been handed another sentencing delay, possibly because of his continued cooperation with the U.S. government that led to the arrest of several Lulzsec members. Sabu plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offenses, and was to receive up to 124 years of imprisonment — but was granted a six-month breather back in August 2012 after the U.S. government asked the District Attorney to consider adjournment of Monsegur's trial 'in light of the defendant's ongoing cooperation with the Government.' New reports indicate that Sabu has dodged sentencing for a second time, with no dates set for the next hearing."

31 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Thou shalt not steal by slick7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The government doesn't like competition.

    --
    The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    1. Re:Thou shalt not steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From what I understand LulzSec never stole anything. The government simply heard they were hacking, which is apparently worse than terrorism, murder, rape, or forced slavery. So they broke this man by threatening to put him in jail for the rest of his life (124 years is a life sentence).

      If he was smarter, he would have gotten a job as a banker and actually stole shit and destroyed people's lives. In that case he would be immune from prosecution.

    2. Re:Thou shalt not steal by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

      But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

      And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.

    3. Re:Thou shalt not steal by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why is this hidden........ its the most appropriate comment on this subject and will be all week!

      Because, like your comment, it was posted anonymously. If you want your posts to be more visible keep an account and log in. If you don't, as you can see, all of the competent mods with strong stomachs (or a love of the trollers art) on Slashdot browse at -1 and someone will pick up a good post in a few minutes. Occasionally if someone finds your comment interesting then they will reply to you which will also make it more visible. If plenty of people then metamod, the good moderators also get more mod points.

      If you really need to be anonymous then you should be posting through tor (watch out for browser leakage; run your browser in a context that knows nothing about you) and just register new accounts from time to time. If you are just posting casually then don't worry.

      BTW. I agree it's a pretty good and pointed comment.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    4. Re:Thou shalt not steal by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The plea bargain system in particular is appalling. Either accept a lesser charge or we'll hit you with everything and nail you to the wall somehow. And indeed that is what is happening here.

    5. Re:Thou shalt not steal by elucido · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Copying large amounts of personal information from corps with bad security and posting it on the Intarwebs, while not stealing, isn't exactly legal. Now that being said, threatening a 124 year sentence for it is bullshit of the highest order.

      But that's the wonderful thing about the US criminal code, isn't it? It doesn't matter if you've actually done anything wrong or not - A DA or cop with a vendetta will find something to fuck you over with eventually because so many things have been criminalized that it's impossible to conduct a meaningful life without being a criminal any more. And all the time on Law & Order, the cops extort business owners into cooperating because "wouldn't it be awful if you had inspectors and tax auditors crawling up your ass forever?" and the district attorneys openly extort witnesses into cooperating by threatening to steal the rest of their lives, but it's a Good Thing because they're after Bad People.

      And if it goes too far, that's exactly how dictatorship works - it's not that you have to cooperate, but bad things might happen if you don't.

      If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime. Turning snitch because you're afraid of life in prison still makes you a snitch.

    6. Re:Thou shalt not steal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're not prepared to go to jail for 124 years then you shouldn't be involved in crime.

      Exactly. It doesn't matter what that crime is - if you're not ready to accept a life sentence, you should be careful to obey every law. No speeding, which might be charged as attempted homicide by motor vehicle. No spitting on the sidewalk, which might be charged as distribution of a biological weapon for all the infectious agents.

      The problem with this case, and with the US justice system in general, is the complete absence of any sense of proportionality. Sabu faces life in prison, but a drunk driver can run down schoolkids and face (on average, across states) 20 years. Sabu faces 124 years in prison for posting credit card numbers on the internet, but running a sex-slave trade is only good for 15 years.

      So, by all means, obey all the laws. Make sure you're not one of the people committing three felonies a day. If you've pissed off someone in the prosecutor's office, breaking even one law can cost you your house, job, family, friends, and freedom.

    7. Re:Thou shalt not steal by anagama · · Score: 2

      Three Felonies a Day:

      http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

      The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. ...

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    8. Re:Thou shalt not steal by amiga3D · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Worse is how they get people to testify against others by offering them time off their sentence. They can't offer you 100,000 dollars to testify against someone but they can say "testify that you saw him shoot the victim and we'll drop your sentence from life to 10 years." Hell I'd rather have the 10 versus life than a million dollars. It is buying testimony no matter what they say. If I'm on a jury all a bought testimony is good for is corroboration of viewable facts at best.

    9. Re:Thou shalt not steal by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's easy to talk a tough game about how "I'll take those motherfuckers down with me if they try to bust in" or how you'll never bow to the "sonuvabitch fascist corporate bootlicker prosecutors" in Internet chat rooms. Turns out the rate of following through when the motherfuckers show up with body armor, stun grenades and heavy rifles, or the sonuvabitch is actually in your face threatening to destroy your life, is rather a bit lower.

      See also: Enthusiasm for war from actual veterans who've served vs from chickenhawks in the Bush administration.

  2. It wasn't free by eksith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He has already been sentenced to a lifetime of cooperation with the feds in exchange for a pittance and an assurance he won't do hard time... or any time maybe. The courts are just a formality at this point; just to placate those calling for his and Anonymous' head.

    --
    If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
    1. Re:It wasn't free by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      which gets us to how courts don't do shit anymore.

      you're either guilty of something worth 124 years in the prison or you're not(obviously a sentence like that is _not_ what had been in mind for the activities he had done). justice shouldn't be a game for prosecutors to play with to get max score(max amount of people doing max amount of time).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. by Rogerborg · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'll most likely jail you in the morning.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:Good night, Sabu. Good work. Sleep well. by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2
      Well; given the LulzSec manifesto statement

      This is the Internet, where we screw each other over for a jolt of satisfaction. There are peons and lulz lizards; trolls and victims.

      you could argue that he's just continuing what LulzSec started. Does anyone know if any of LulzSec ever rejected that part of their manifesto? I mean, given that they all seem to have been identified despite attempts to hide shouldn't they all ask us to laugh at their security?

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  4. Anyone else find the system disturbing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The system “works” by getting people who may or may not be guilty to “cooperate”. If you “cooperate” it means your helping to convict other people who may or may not be guilty. The way they get you to “cooperate” is by intimidation. They pile on every conceivable charge and you can't feasibly defend against everything financially. The reason only rich people get off is because they can afford to fight (pay a good lawyer for a near indefinite period of time).

  5. Problem though by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2

    "plead guilty to all counts of bank fraud and identity theft offences"

    It doesn't matter what you're guilty of, if you actually plead guilty. If they had me in court, threatening to imprison me for a hundred years of more, I wouldn't plead guilty. Argue the bastards down to something manageable (ie, less than a lifetime) or make them PROVE their charges. Don't agree to a plea bargain that effectively ends your life.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Problem though by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's important to remember he "faces up to 124 years in prison"; not "he will get 124 yeas". Likely he has some plea bargain already agreed reducing that considerably. Presumably he has already got that agreed down to the level where the prosecutor will recommend 20 years or less and has some set of conditions which lead him to come lower.

      Leaving plea bargains completely with prosecutors (US prosecutors can decide exactly which crimes to prosecute for; US judges have strict sentencing guidelines which depend on that choice) is what converts the US criminal law system from a "justice system" into an enforcement system. In almost every other country the Judge is allowed to review everything. If an unreasonable guilty plea has been made he can ignore it or reduce the sentence completely. If the prosecutor has ignored certain crimes to get a settlement, the Judge can even sometimes reinstate those. This reduces proprietorial discretion from something around 1000% (Sabu is a supid git, but IMHO it's worth maximum 5 years even if you think crimes against stupidity should be strongly punished; probably really a few months) down to about 20-50%. This makes prosecutors think seriously about doing their job and not just going out for publicity. That's what went wrong with Aaron's case. Imagine your friend with a newborn kid makes a small mistake (curiously wonder what that SQL string is in your bank login; check it before you realise what you are doing) and gets a shit like Ms Ortiz. Imagine she begins to believe that the only way she's going to see her kid again before the kid grows up is if she says who taught her how to do that. Imagine it was you tried to teach her how to secure her web server.

      If you are a US voter, for the love of god (or whatever it is you worship) write off to your congressmen and explain why Aaron's case was wrong. Try to fix at least the computer legislation if not the system of plea bargains.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    2. Re:Problem though by shaitand · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's sad because prosecutors are agents of the court not of the executive. The mentality associated with the job is that they are agents of the executive. The prosecutor is not an enforcement tool of a legislative his discretion means he has no obligation to prosecute under an unjust law. His success is not measured in how many people he managed to have punished. The success of the prosecutor is defined by the instances in which he prevents a miscarriage of justice by not bringing charges. The prosecutor essentially has the same nullification powers as a jury but on a larger scope.

      The system was built to stop unjust laws in their tracks. If congress passed a law limiting free speech for example. They lack the power to see anyone actually imprisoned. First that law must be enforced by the executive. The executive could block enforcement altogether but congress has granted itself micro "oversight" of the executives budget so it strong arm the executive into doing what it wants. So then the unjust law goes to more localized agents of the people with a smaller sphere of influence but who can be "checked" only by the people themselves. The prosecutor can nullify an unjust law in his jurisdiction. If he does not, the people are reserved the power to overrule government entirely but only on a case-by-case basis, as a jury. The jury interprets facts and the judge the law but the jury also has the obligation to judge the merit of application of the law and factor that into their decision.

      In this way the people in the form of their prosecutor and directly in the form of their juries were SUPPOSED to be proof against all three branches of government. The courts haven't decided that nullification powers don't exist but they have decided that they have no obligation to inform juries of them. In fact the judges have decided they can legally lie in instructions to the jury and will declare a mistrial if they discover a jury is aware of their nullification powers.

      As a citizen this is your most important civil obligation. To protect the peers in your community and thereby to protect yourself.

    3. Re:Problem though by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      My solution to that is making lies by the government employees illegal. What they do is lie about their chances in court "we have you dead to rights" and how much they realistically expect you to be sentenced to. I read a paper by someone at University of Chicago that discussed how plea bargaining is torture (not the torture of physical pain to get a wanted result, but punishing someone until they confessed). But the courts have repeatedly defended the right of police and prosecutors to lie and "badger" (so long as it isn't "coercion") to extract a confession.

  6. He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The sentences reported in press releases when someone is indicted are derived by adding up for each charge the maximum sentence that it is possible for anyone to get for that charge, and then that total is reported. That is nowhere near what the person actually faces in almost every case. There are three things under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that greatly reduce the sentence they actually face.

    First, the maximum sentence for a given count is only possible for the most severe instances of that kind of violation.

    Second, priory convictions are taken into account. To get the maximum sentence, you have to pretty much be a career criminal.

    Finally, felonies are divided into groups. If you are charged with multiple felonies from the same group for the same underlying acts, you will only be sentenced for one of the felonies in the group.

    The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are non-binding, so it is possible for a judge to sentence someone to more than the guidelines call for, but such sentences are almost always reduced on appeal to something in accord with the Guidelines. I've not seen anything in the Sabu case that would make it an exception to this.

    1. Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      So what you're saying is.

      Don't worry about excessive penalties, because they're never used, unless they are used, or they're even gone beyond, but it won't happen, unless it does, but it probably wont.

    2. Re:He was never facing 124 years of imprisonment by nickserv · · Score: 2

      It's not about what the judges choose to do or what the sentencing guidelines say. It's about prosecutorial intimidation e.g. "you're going away for the rest of your life or you cooperate" which occurs way before a judge ever gets a chance to rule on sentencing.

      This is why the vast majority of cases are closed with a nolo contendo (no contest) plea bargain and never even make it to trial. There is very little justice left in the US (in)justice system for the average citizen without vast resources to defend themselves.

      --
      Less *is* more.
  7. It's just torture by legal threat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    And, just like torture, the torturer gets whatever information the one being tortured thinks they want to hear.

    However, the USA has long since decided that this is not a problem.

  8. I basically predicted this.... by djsmiley · · Score: 2

    http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3068789&cid=41106927

    Last time, I said as long as he helps he won't go down....

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  9. He's a pathetic snitch who will have no friends by elucido · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When he arrives at prison he will have a target on his back. He will have no friends and will have to be put in the protective custody section of the prison. In that section of the prison he will again have no friends because most of the people there are snitches or sex offenders. People who don't believe in anything, people who can't be trusted.

    If you're willing to break the law for some cause, whether it be Antisec, Lulzsec or whatever the hell else you claim to do it for, then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that cause. If you're not prepared to go to prison for that cause then don't break the goddamn law. Part of protesting is going to prison. Part of being an activist if you're doing it as social activism is to be willing to go to prison, potentially for life. If you're not then get another profession.

  10. Re:Nothing says "rat" like a deferred sentence by elucido · · Score: 2

    'nuff said

    It's basically confirmed and carved onto his forehead now. He's a rat. He snitched to avoid doing time. And he didn't just snitch, he actively helped to entrap his comrades which means he either never really believed in what he was preaching, or he simply doesn't value the lives of the others who risked their futures for that agenda. It's disgusting really to do that.

    If you're going to believe in something then you have to be prepared to go to prison for that. If you're not prepared to go to prison then you don't believe in shit and shouldn't be posing as a hacktivist. It's not a surprise that Sabu is a fraud and a poser, but it is a surprise that he is a traitor to the lengths that he went. He was trying to sucker people into his black hole so that as many people with his beliefs would go to prison as possible.Whether you agree with his beliefs or not, would you want someone to infiltrate your church, or whatever community group you're involved with and start baiting you and others into doing illegal stuff so that your group and you yourself have to go to prison and have your life ruined?

  11. The system isn't new. by elucido · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

    So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side? Either you're with Antisec or you're not. The posers are the problem. Sabu was like the agent provocateur who would encourage people to commit crimes so the authorities could have something on them and pressure some of them into becoming traitors.

    1. Re:The system isn't new. by tburkhol · · Score: 2

      If they want to get you they'll find something on you until they get you. The point is this, if you're a political activist then you gotta plan on getting got. Plan ahead of time on going to prison or don't be any kind of political activist. MLK knew he was going to be arrested a lot and knew he was going to be killed. So did most others.

      So why are the current generation of so called hacktivists populated by these coward snitches like Sabu who start out talking all brave and tough but then get questioned by men in uniform and suddenly they turn completely against their crew and their side?

      There have been betrayers and spies within every politically active group back to the Magna Carta. They're part of the reason MLK and John Lewis had to plan on going to jail (note: jail, not prison). It's shockingly difficult to stand up to the threats/pressure/mental anguish that Power is able to apply, and very few people are able to play Prisoner's Dilemma rationally when faced with actual, real-world penalties. Hate Sabu all you want, but don't pretend that you wouldn't sell out AnonFag342 in exchange for the chance to be present at your kid's graduation or wedding, unless you've had to make that choice.

  12. Re:He's a snitch, an informer, an ignoble fraud. by rtb61 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Even worse that slime sought and groomed minors to commit crimes for him and also to be the fall guys for the crimes he committed. The FBI also went on to seek and groom more minors into criminal activity with all the profound stupidity of those who see their promotions before any principles of justice.

    Right now the FBI and Hector Xavier Monsegur are stuck with each other. The FBI trying to excuse their joint criminal activity to the judges and now the FBI are stuck pushing a hugely reduced sentence for nothing, for all the joint criminal activity they finished with the same number of lulzsec members they started with and found 'Anonymous' not to be some giant hacking organisation with tens of thousands of members but just an idea. Yet the FBI are stuck with Hector Xavier Monsegur else they will not be able to recruit quislings and back stabbers in future.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  13. Re:He's a snitch, an informer, an ignoble fraud. by HornWumpus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Cops discard snitches when they are done with them, like used rubbers.

    Even the ones that get witness relocation end up working a schlub job in some shithole rust belt town. Hector doesn't have anybody trying to kill him so he will just be left to his own devices. I'm guessing another felony inside of a year. This time some state rap.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  14. u.s no different than soviet union by Vince6791 · · Score: 2

    All humans are born self serving, narcissistic, assholes but some eventually grow out of it. A country is just an ideology with virtual borders and regardless of political ideology that fuels the government, eventually, it will fail due to corruption and human rights abuse. Well, people fight back.

    Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro(filthy rich) were and 1 still is a pure Capitalist con artist who duped millions into a feudal system(pure capitalism) aka communism and socialism(far from the real socialist systems), turning the majority into serfs just like here in the U.S where the rest of us are living off the scraps the rich throw away or trickle down economics. Or what i like to call trickle down, pee pee on the people.

    Was anybody ever prosecuted over the near economic collapse? Housing bubble crisis triggered by wall street, banks, Fannie Mae, which left 1.5 million without a home, 401k's destroyed? Was there an investigation on Bush's lies that lead to the Iraq and basically middle east invasion? Nope.