OP 24 January, 2025 - 01:11 AM
When the owner of the original BreachForums, Conor Fitzpatrick, aka “Pompompurin,” was sentenced in January of 2024 to time served plus 20 years supervised release with special conditions, it was a shock. Although young, Fitzpatrick had pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device, access device fraud, and possession of child pornography. Based on federal sentencing guidelines, the prosecution had sought a minimum of 188 months in prison. Instead, the judge gave Fitzpatrick no prison time at all other than the 17 days he had served in detention awaiting sentencing after he violated the conditions of his release while awaiting sentencing.
The terms of the supervised release were no walk in the park, but it certainly seemed lighter than a minimum of 15 years in prison.
In rendering her decision, Judge Brinkema appeared to rely almost exclusively on sealed mental health reports. Then where was the justice for Fitzpatrick’s victims? Where was the deterrent value of a serious prison sentence? And how would the public be safe if Fitzpatrick were living in the same home in which he had been committing crimes for years and while he was supposedly being monitored while out on bond? What would prevent him from getting another burner phone, another VPN, and resuming his online life and activities if he lived at home?
Unsurprisingly, the government appealed the sentence, claiming that Judge Brinkema abused her discretion and the sentence was unreasonable. As part of their appeal, they cited a case with very similar circumstances (United States v. Zuk). As DataBreaches noted at the time, the government was appealing Fitzpatrick’s sentence to the same appellate court that had vacated Zuk’s lenient sentence and had remanded that one for re-sentencing. Zuk appeared to be a strong precedent for the court considering the appeal of Fitzpatrick’s sentence.
Continue reading:
Source:
DataBreaches
https://databreaches.net/2025/01/22/do-o...sentenced/
The terms of the supervised release were no walk in the park, but it certainly seemed lighter than a minimum of 15 years in prison.
In rendering her decision, Judge Brinkema appeared to rely almost exclusively on sealed mental health reports. Then where was the justice for Fitzpatrick’s victims? Where was the deterrent value of a serious prison sentence? And how would the public be safe if Fitzpatrick were living in the same home in which he had been committing crimes for years and while he was supposedly being monitored while out on bond? What would prevent him from getting another burner phone, another VPN, and resuming his online life and activities if he lived at home?
Unsurprisingly, the government appealed the sentence, claiming that Judge Brinkema abused her discretion and the sentence was unreasonable. As part of their appeal, they cited a case with very similar circumstances (United States v. Zuk). As DataBreaches noted at the time, the government was appealing Fitzpatrick’s sentence to the same appellate court that had vacated Zuk’s lenient sentence and had remanded that one for re-sentencing. Zuk appeared to be a strong precedent for the court considering the appeal of Fitzpatrick’s sentence.
Continue reading:
Source:
DataBreaches
https://databreaches.net/2025/01/22/do-o...sentenced/
![[Image: supremechad.gif]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fstatic.cracked.io%2Fimages%2Fsmilies%2Fsupremechad.gif)