Jeremy Hammond's Petulant Judge Rules Husband Hacked Email Totes Irrelevant: Order Recusal 2-21-13-2

7/29/2019 Jeremy Hammond's Petulant Judge Rules Husband Hacked Email Totes Irrelevant: Order Recusal 2-21-13-2

1/27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

United Sta tes of America,MEMORANDUM & ORDER

- v . Jeremy Hammond,

Defendant .- -x

LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief Uni ted Sta tes D i s t r i c t Judge:Defendant Jeremy Hammond ("Defendant fT o r "Hammond'/)

has moved under 28 U.S.C. 455 to d i squa l i fy t h i s Court frompre s id ing in t h i s ac t ion [dkt . no. 30] . Defendant c la ims t h a tan appearance o f p a r t i a l i t y and an appearance of f inanc ia li n t e re s t are too s t rong to be disregarded because (1) on l inepost ings purpor t to show t h a t Thomas J . Kava le r t h i s Cour t ' shusband, i s an a l leged vic t im of some o f the charged offenseconduct , and (2) Mr. Kavale r ' s law firm r ep resen t s , in unre la tedmat te rs , "o ther prominent vict ims" of some of the chargedoffense conduct . For the reasons t h a t fo l low, the motion i sDENIED.I . BACKGROUND

Defendant i s charged in a superseding ind ic tment [dkt .no. 9] with pa r t i c ipa t ing in a s e r i e s of computer break- ins andda ta t he f t s from computer networks opera ted by va r ious

1

Case 1:12-cr-00185-LAP Document 40 Filed 02/21/13 Page 1 of 27


2/27

2

gover nment al and busi ness ent i t i es as par t of t he Lul zSec and

Ant i Sec comput er hacki ng gr oups, whi ch wer e l oosel y af f i l i at ed

wi t h t he onl i ne gr oup Anonymous. ( See I ndi ct ment , S1 12 Cr i m.

185 ( LAP) ( I ndi ct ment ) [ dkt . no. 9] . ) Speci f i cal l y, Count Two

of t he super sedi ng i ndi ct ment char ges Def endant wi t h conspi r i ng

t o commi t comput er hacki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1030( b) ,

i n connect i on wi t h a cyber at t ack i n J une 2011 on comput er

syst ems used by t he Ar i zona Depart ment of Publ i c Saf et y, a st ate

l aw enf or cement organi zat i on. ( I d. 17- 26, 26( f ) - 29. ) Count s

Three, Four , Fi ve, and Si x char ge Def endant wi t h another count

of conspi r acy t o commi t comput er hacki ng, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1030( b) ( I d. 30- 39) ; subst ant i ve comput er hacki ng,

i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1030( a) ( 5) ( A) , 1030( b) ,

1030( c) ( 4) ( B) ( i ) , and ( 2) ( I d. 40- 41) ; conspi r acy t o commi t

access devi se f r aud, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C. 1029( b) ( 2) ( I d.

42- 47) ; and aggr avat ed i dent i t y t hef t , i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1028( A) and ( 2) ( I d. 48- 49) . Count s Thr ee t hr ough

Si x ar e al l char ged i n connect i on wi t h Def endant s al l eged

par t i ci pat i on i n t he St r at f or Hack, a hack of t he comput er

syst ems of a pr i vat e, subscr i pt i on- based pr ovi der of i nf or mat i on

anal ysi s ser vi ces, St r at egi c For ecast i ng, I nc. , known as

St r at f or . ( See gener al l y i d. 36- 49. )



3/27

3

I n connect i on wi t h t he St r at f or Hack, and i nsof ar as

t he i nst ant mot i on i s concer ned, Def endant and hi s co-

conspi r at or s ar e al l eged to have, among ot her t hi ngs:

i . stol e[ n] conf i dent i al i nf ormat i on . . .i ncl udi ng appr oxi matel y 60, 000 cr edi t card number s andassoci at ed dat a bel ongi ng t o cl i ent s of St r at f or ,i ncl udi ng t he cardhol der s names and addr esses, aswel l as t he car ds secur i t y codes and expi r at i ondates; r ecor ds f or appr oxi mat el y 860, 000 St r at f orcl i ent s, i ncl udi ng i ndi vi dual user I Ds, user names,encr ypt ed passwor ds, and emai l addr esses; . . . andi nt er nal St r at f or cor por at e document s;

i i . used some of t he st ol en credi t car d dat a t o

make at l east $700, 000 wor t h of unaut hor i zed char ges;

. . .

v. publ i cl y di scl osed conf i dent i al dat a t hathad been st ol en f r om St r at f or s comput er ser ver s,i ncl udi ng, . . . names, addr esses, credi t car dnumber s, usernames, and emai l addresses f or t housandsof St rat f or c l i ent s . . . ; and

vi . upl oaded dat a st ol en f r om St r at f or ont o a

ser ver l ocat ed i n t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k.

( I ndi ct ment , at 28- 29. ) 1

On J anuar y 20, 2012, a cl ass act i on l awsui t was f i l ed

i n t he U. S. Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he East er n Di st r i ct of New Yor k

agai nst St r at f or on behal f of al l per sons, cor por at i ons, or

1 I n t he Government s Memorandum i n Opposi t i on t o Def endant sMot i on f or Di squal i f i cat i on ( Gov t Br . ) [ dkt . no. 34] , t heGovernment not es t hat at l east appr oxi mat el y 200 gi gabyt es ofconf i dent i al i nf or mat i on f r om St r af or s comput er syst ems i sal l eged t o have been st ol en as par t of t he St r at f or Hack. ( Gov tBr . , at 4. ) As expl ai ned i n t he Gover nment s Br i ef , [ a]gi gabyt e i s a measur e of dat a st or age equi val ent t oappr oxi mat el y 675, 000 pages of t ext . ( I d. at n. 1. )



4/27

4

ent i t i es whose f i nanci al and/ or per sonal i nf or mat i on was

obt ai ned by t hi r d- par t i es due t o t he [ St r at f or Hack] . See Am.

Compl . 31, St er l i ng v. St r at egi c For ecast i ng, I nc. , No. 12

Ci v. 297- DRH- ARL ( E. D. N. Y. Feb. 8, 2012) , dkt . no. 3. The sui t

set t l ed on November 15, 2012. See Am. Fi nal Or der and J .

Regar di ng Cl ass Act i on Set t l ement , St er l i ng, No. 12 Ci v. 297-

DRH- ARL ( Nov. 15, 2012) , dkt . no. 29 ( St r at f or Cl ass Act i on

Set t l ement Or der ) . I n t he St r at f or Cl ass Act i on Set t l ement

Or der , t he Cour t cer t i f i ed t he cl ass act i on on behal f of t hose

who ar e cur r ent or f or mer subscr i ber s t o t he St r at f or Ser vi ce on

December 24, 2011, whose credi t card i nf ormat i on St r at f or had on

f i l e on December 24, 2011, and whose credi t card i nf ormat i on was

obt ai ned by t hi r d- par t i es due t o t he br each of St r at f or s

comput er st orage syst ems. See St r at f or Cl ass Act i on Set t l ement

Or der 3. The cl ass act i on member l i st i ncl uded appr oxi mat el y

882, 137 r ecords. See Decl . of Andr ew Beckor d 3, St er l i ng, No.

12 Ci v. 297- DRH- ARL ( Sept . 10, 2012) , dkt . no. 24- 3.

On November 28, 2012, El i zabeth Fi nk, counsel f or

Def endant not i f i ed t he Cour t dur i ng a t el ephone conf er ence t hat

on or about November 22 or 23, 2012, she had r ecei ved f r om a

r eport er an emai l cont ai ni ng a l i nk t o an anonymous websi t e

pur por t edl y l i st i ng al l of t he vi cti ms of t he St r at f or Hack ( t he



5/27

5

Dazzl epod l i st ) . 2 ( Tr anscr i pt of Tel ephone Conf . , at 2 ( Nov.

28, 2012) ( Tr anscr i pt ) [ dkt . no. 35] . ) Ms. Fi nk t hen i nf or med

t he cour t t hat among t hose l i st ed as a St r at f or subscr i ber on

t he anonymous websi t e was Thomas J . Kaval er , husband of t hi s

Cour t , al ong wi t h Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess at Cahi l l Gor don &

Rei ndel LLP ( Cahi l l Gor don) , t he l aw f i r m at whi ch he i s a

par t ner . ( See i d. at 2- 3; see al so Def . s Br . , at 2- 3; Gov t

Br . , at 5- 6. ) The next day, Ms. Fi nk pr ovi ded t hi s Cour t and

t he Gover nment wi t h t he f ol l owi ng pr i nt out s r ef l ect i ng t he

i nf or mat i on she rel ayed t o t he Cour t : ( 1) t he emai l she recei ved

f r om t he r epor t er , ( 2) t he ar t i cl e t o whi ch t hat emai l l i nked

( whi ch appeared on t he websi t e #Fr eeAnons, Anonymous Sol i dar i t y

Net wor k, ht t p: / / f r eeanons. or g) , ( 3) a webpage t o whi ch a l i nk i n

t he ar t i cl e di r ect s r eader s, whi ch i s a scr eenshot of t he par t

of t he Dazzl epod l i st cont ai ni ng Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess,

and ( 4) a webpage t o whi ch anot her l i nk i n t he ar t i cl e di r ect s

r eader s, whi ch i s a screenshot of Mr . Kaval er s pr of i l e page

f r om Cahi l l Gor don s websi t e. 3

2 Accor di ng t o Def endant s Memorandum of Law i n Suppor t ofDef endant s Mot i on f or Di squal i f i cat i on [ dkt . no. 32] , t hewebsi t e ht t p: / / dazzl epod. com/ st r at f or cont ai ns a l i st of emai l smade avai l abl e so t hat St r at f or users can check i f t hey wer evi ct i ms of t he hack. ( See Memo. of Law i n Support of Def . s Mot .f or Di squal i f i cat i on ( Def . s Br . ) at 2. )

Al t hough Ms. Fi nk noted dur i ng

3 A copy of t he emai l f r om t he r epor t er i s at t ached t o t heAf f i r mat i on of El i zabet h M. Fi nk [ dkt . no. 31] as Exhi bi t A.( Af f . of El i zabet h M. Fi nk, Dec. 6, 2012, ( Fi nk Af f . ) Ex. A. )( cont d)



6/27

6

t he t el ephone conf er ence t hat she bel i eved Mr . Kaval er s cr edi t

card i nf ormat i on may have been di ssemi nated as a r esul t of t he

hack, a revi ew of t he copi es submi t t ed t o t hi s Cour t i mmedi at el y

di spel s any such concer ns. 4

On December 6, 2012, Def endant moved t hi s Cour t f or

di squal i f i cat i on ( see [ dkt . nos. 30, 32] . ) I n addi t i on t o

r ecount i ng most of t he i nf ormat i on noted above, Def endant s

Br i ef al so pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on t o suggest t he br eadt h t o whi ch

t he St r at f or Hack af f ect ed cl i ent s of Cahi l l Gor don and, t hus,

t he f i nanci al i nt er est s of Mr . Kaval er . ( See Def . s Br . , at 1-

3. ) Speci f i cal l y, Def endant not es that Mr . Kaval er has been a

par t ner at Cahi l l Gordon si nce 1980 and i s one of si x members of

t he l aw f i r m s management commi t t ee. ( I d. at 3. ) Addi t i onal l y,

Def endant st at es t hat Mer i l l Lynch and AI G ar e maj or cl i ent s of

Cahi l l Gor don and al l eges t hat t hese ent i t i es wer e al so vi ct i ms

of t he St r at f or Hack. Accor di ng t o Def endant ,

( cont d f r om pr evi ous page)Def endant , however , di d not at t ach t o hi s Br i ef copi es of t heot her t hr ee i t ems del i ver ed t o t he Cour t . As such, t he Cour thas at t ached Ms. Fi nk s f ul l submi ssi on t o t he Cour t , asr ecei ved on November 29, 2012, as Exhi bi t 1 of t hi s Or der .4 Upon vi si t i ng t he Dazzl epod websi t e, one l ear ns t hat a per son semai l addr ess i s pr eceded by a cc i f t hat user s cr edi t car di nf ormat i on i s bel i eved t o have been compr omi sed. See St r at f or ,Dazzl epod ( l ast vi si t ed Feb. 21, 2013) ,ht t ps: / / dazzl epod. com/ st r at f or ( updat ed on J an. 2, 2012, t or ef l ect t hi s di st i ncti on) . Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess i s notpr eceded by a cc. ( See Ex. 1, at 4. )



7/27

7

Mer r i l l Lynch appear s t o have been par t i cul ar l yi mpact ed by t he hack; over 800 account s associ at edwi t h Merr i l l Lynch emai l addr esses were compr omi sed.Cahi l l Gordon has over seen hundr eds of mi l l i ons ofdol l ar s i n i nvest ment banki ng ar r angement s f or Mer r i l lLynch. I n 2006, Cahi l l Gor don act ed as speci alcounsel t o Mer r i l l Lynch, i n t hei r capaci t y asAdmi ni st r at i ve Agent , on an i nvest ment banki ngar r angement wi t h anot her St r at f or cl i ent , AESCorporat i on, br oker i ng a $600, 000, 000 credi t agr eementbet ween t he t wo compani es. Accor di ng t o a newsr el ease dat ed November 27, 2012[ , ] on t he Cahi l lGor don websi t e, t he f i r m r ecent l y r epr esent ed Mer r i l lLynch i n another i nvest ment banki ng deal i nvol vi ng anof f er i ng of $350, 000, 000.

( I d. ) Def endant f ur t her al l eges, [ u] pon i nf or mat i on and

bel i ef , [ t hat ] mor e t han t went y Cahi l l Gor don cl i ent s wer e

vi ct i ms of t he St r at f or hack. 5

Upon f i l i ng Def endant s mot i on f or di squal i f i cat i on

and t he associ at ed br i ef i n suppor t , Ms. Fi nk al so f i l ed an

af f i r mat i on of her own i n suppor t of Def endant s mot i on. ( See

Fi nk Af f . ) At t ached t o t he Fi nk Af f i r mat i on i s a compi l at i on of

t went y- t hr ee pr i nt out s f r om websi t es of f er i ng t hei r ver si ons of

t he i nf ormat i on Ms. Fi nk r el ayed t o t he Cour t on November 28t h

( see i d. Ex. B) and a copy of t hi s Cour t s wr i t t en submi ssi on t o

t he Senat e J udi ci ar y Commi t t ee pr ovi ded dur i ng the conf i r mat i on

pr ocess i n 1992 f or t he pur poses of af f i r mi ng i t s commi t ment t o

( I d. )

5 Def endant support s t hese cl ai ms by ci t i ng i t s own non-exhaust i ve sear ch of t he dazzl epod l i st of St r at f or cl i ent s. ( I d. at n. 5)



8/27

8

f ol l owi ng t he Code of Conduct wi t h r egar ds t o r ecusal ( see i d.

Ex. C) .

The Government r esponded t o Def endant s mot i on on

December 21, 2012, and t her ei n i nf ormed t hi s Cour t t hat

[ a] gent s of t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i onhave i nvest i gat ed t he def endant s cl ai ms r egar di ng t het hef t of Mr . Kaval er s per sonal dat a as a r esul t oft he St r at f or Hack, i ncl udi ng r evi ewi ng t he dat a t hatt he Gover nment al l eges t he def endant st ol e f r omSt r at f or and t hen passed t o a cooper at i ng wi t ness( whi ch was pr oduced t o t he def endant i n di scover y, andconf i r mi ng t hat i nf or mat i on wi t h St r at f or . Based ont hi s i nvest i gat i on, t he FBI has det er mi ned t hat t he

onl y per sonal i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on r el at ed t o Mr .Kaval er t hat was st ol en or di scl osed as a r esul t oft he hack was Mr . Kaval er s publ i cl y avai l abl e l aw f i r memai l addr ess; St r at f or s dat a di d not cont ai n anycr edi t car d i nf or mat i on associ at ed wi t h Mr . Kaval er .St r at f or s dat a does cont ai n one r ecor d of asubscr i pt i on associ at ed wi t h Mr . Kavavl er s Cahi l lGor don emai l address f or t he per i od bet ween March 18,2008[ , ] and Apr i l 1, 2008, but , as set out [ i n Mr .Kaval er s swor n af f i r mat i on] , Mr . Kaval er has nor ecol l ect i on of t hat t wo- week subscr i pt i on i n 2008.

( Gov t Br . , at 7. )

At t ached t o the Gover nment s Br i ef i s a sworn

af f i r mat i on f r om Mr . Kaval er . ( See Af f i r mat i on, Dec. 21, 2012,

Gov t Br . Ex. A. ( Kaval er Af f . ) [ dkt . no. 34- 1] . ) I n hi s

af f i r mat i on, Mr . Kaval er st at es t hat he r egul ar l y recei ve[ s]

unsol i ci t ed emai l s f r om busi nesses and ot her or gani zat i ons . . .

[ and] r ecei ve[ s] f r om St r at f or f r om t i me t o t i me emai l s t hat

cont ai n, among ot her t hi ngs, newsl et t er s and sol i ci t at i ons t o

become a subscr i ber or t o pur chase St r at f or s pr oduct s.



9/27

9

( Kaval er Af f . 5. ) Mr . Kaval er cont i nues by at t est i ng t hat he

has never pr ovi ded St r at f or wi t h [ hi s] cr edi t car d number or

any ot her per sonal f i nanci al or i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on such as

[ hi s] name, addr ess, Soci al Secur i t y number or t el ephone number

and st at es expl i ci t l y t hat he nei t her r ecal l s r equest i ng t he

Mar ch 18, 2008, t o Apr i l 1, 2008, subscr i pt i on nor knows

anyt hi ng about i t . ( I d. 6. ) Accor di ng t o Mr . Kaval er , onl y

[ hi s] publ i cl y avai l abl e Cahi l l Gor don emai l addr ess was

pur por t edl y di scl osed as a resul t of t he [ ] dat a t hef t f r om

St r at f or . . . [ and] ot her t han t hat publ i cl y avai l abl e Cahi l l

Gordon emai l addr ess, St r at f or does not have any personal

i nf or mat i on of [ hi s] t hat coul d have been st ol en and

di ssemi nat ed, and never di d have such i nf ormat i on. ( I d. 7. )

Fi nal l y, Mr . Kaval er st at es t hat he never r ecei ved any

not i f i cat i on t hat [ he was] a member of [ t he St r at f or Cl ass

Act i on] and [ has] never r ecei ved any benef i t i n connect i on wi t h

t hat or any ot her l awsui t f i l ed i n connect i on wi t h St r at f or .

( I d. 8. ) Def endant , who upon r equest f r om hi s counsel and wi t h

t he consent of t he Gover nment had unt i l Febr uary 4, 2013, t o

r epl y t o the i nf or mat i on i ncl uded i n t he Gover nment s Br i ef ( see

[ dkt . no. 37] , di d not f i l e a r epl y to t he Gover nment s

opposi t i on t o hi s mot i on f or di squal i f i cat i on. By Or der dat ed

Febr uar y 13, 2013, t hi s Cour t i nf or med t he par t i es t hat i t



10/27

10

consi der ed t he mat t er f ul l y br i ef ed and st at ed t hat t he par t i es

woul d have an oppor t uni t y t o pr esent oral argument on Febr uar y

21, 2013.

I I . DI SCUSSI ON

A. The Law

The deci si on t o grant or deny a r ecusal mot i on i s

commi t t ed t o the sound di scr et i on of t he j udge t o whom t he

mot i on i s di r ect ed. See I n r e Dr exel Bur nham Lamber t , I nc. , 861

F. 2d 1307, 1312 ( 2d Ci r . 1988) , r eh g deni ed, 869 F. 2d 116 ( 2d

Ci r . 1989) . A j udge must car ef ul l y wei gh t he pol i cy of

pr omot i ng publ i c conf i dence i n t he j udi ci ar y agai nst t he

possi bi l i t y t hat t hose quest i oni ng [ her ] i mpar t i al i t y mi ght be

seeki ng t o avoi d the adver se consequences of [ her ] pr esi di ng

over t hei r case. Dr exel , 861 F. 2d at 1312. I ndeed, t he publ i c

i nt er est mandat es t hat j udges not be i nt i mi dat ed out of an

abundance of caut i on i nt o gr ant i ng di squal i f i cat i on mot i ons: A

t r i al j udge must be f r ee to make r ul i ngs on t he mer i t s wi t hout

t he appr ehensi on t hat i f he makes a di sproport i onate number i n

f avor of one l i t i gant , he may cr eat e t he [ appear ance] of bi as,

and [ a] t i mi d j udge, l i ke a bi ased j udge, i s i nt r i nsi cal l y a

l awl ess j udge. I n r e I nt l Bus. Mach. , 618 F. 2d 923, 929 ( 2d

Ci r . 1980) ( quot i ng Wi l ker son v. McCar t y, 336 U. S. 53, 65 ( 1949)

( Fr ankf ur t er , J . , concur r i ng) ) . Thus, a j udge wei ghi ng r ecusal

must i gnor e rumor s, i nnuendos, and er r oneous i nf or mat i on, I n



11/27

11

r e Uni t ed St at es, 666 F. 2d 690, 695 ( 1st Ci r . 1981) , and avoi d

gr ant i ng r ecusal mot i ons f or r easons t hat ar e remot e,

cont i ngent , or specul at i ve, Dr exel , 861 F. 2d at 1312.

Fi nal l y, [ a] j udge i s as much obl i ged not t o r ecuse [ her sel f ]

when i t i s not cal l ed f or as [ she] i s obl i ged t o when i t i s.

Dr exel , 861 F. 2d at 1312; see al so I n r e Agui nda, 241 F. 3d 194,

201 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ( [ W] her e t he st andards gover ni ng

di squal i f i cat i on have not been met , r ecusal i s not opt i onal ;

r at her , i t i s pr ohi bi t ed. ) ; McCann v. Communi cat i ons Desi gn

Corp. , 775 F. Supp. 1506, 1533 ( D. Conn. 1991) ( gr ant of an

unf ounded mot i on woul d undermi ne publ i c conf i dence i n the

j udi ci ar y, f or t he j udi ci ar y woul d appear [ cl ear l y] mani pul at ed

. . . ) .

Def endant asser t s t hat di squal i f i cat i on i s r equi r ed

her e pur suant t o two subsect i ons of Sect i on 455: ( a) and ( b) . 6

6 Def endant s Br i ef al so rel i es on Canon 3C of t he Code ofConduct f or Uni t ed St at es J udges ( a sour ce of l aw t o whi ch t heGovernment does not ci t e) , not i ng t hat Canon 3C t r acks 28 U. S. C. 455, ( see Def . s Br . , at 5- 6) . Al t hough compl i ance wi t h t heCode by al l t hose aut hor i zed t o per f or m j udi ci al f unct i ons i sessent i al t o our syst em of j ust i ce, t he Cour t not es t hat [ t ] heCode of Conduct cont ai ns no enf or cement mechani sm. The Canons,i ncl udi ng t he one t hat r equi r es a j udge t o di squal i f y hi msel f i ncer t ai n ci r cumst ances ar e sel f - enf or ci ng. Uni t ed St at es v.Mi cr osof t Cor p. , 253 F. 3d 34, 114 ( D. C. Ci r . 2001) ( i nt er nalci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The onl y r emedi es f or vi ol at i on of t he Codear e t he i nst i t ut i on of a di sci pl i nar y compl ai nt or a mot i on t odi squal i f y pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 144 or 445. I d.Accor di ngl y, par t i cul ar l y i n l i ght of t he si mi l ar i t y i n l anguage( cont d)



12/27

12

Under 28 U. S. C. 455( a) , a di st r i ct j udge shal l r ecuse her sel f

wher e [ her ] i mpar t i al i t y mi ght r easonabl y be quest i oned.

Di squal i f i cat i on under sect i on 455( a) r equi r es a showi ng t hat

woul d cause an obj ect i ve, di si nt er est ed obser ver f ul l y i nf or med

of t he under l yi ng f act s [ t o] ent er t ai n si gni f i cant doubt t hat

j ust i ce woul d be done absent r ecusal . Uni t ed St at es v.

Lauer sen, 348 F. 3d 329, 334 ( 2d Ci r . 2003) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ;

see al so Agui nda, 241 F. 3d at 201 ( [ D] i squal i f i cat i on f or l ack

of i mpar t i al i t y must have a r easonabl e basi s. ( quot i ng S. Rep.

No. 93- 419, at 5 ( 1973) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) ) . Whi l e t he

f ocus of Sect i on 455( a) i s on appear ances and appl i es even i f

t he j udge i s pur e i n hear t and i ncor r upt i bl e, see Li l j eber g v.

Heal t h Ser vs. Acqui si t i on Cor p. , 486 U. S. 847, 860 ( 1988) , t he

st andar d i s not t o be appl i ed by consi der i ng what a st r aw pol l

of t he onl y par t l y i nf or med man- i n- t he- st r eet woul d show.

Uni t ed St at es v. Bayl ess, 201 F. 3d 116, 127- 28 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) .

Rather , a j udge i s pr esumed to be i mpart i al and the movi ng part y

bears a subst ant i al bur den t o over come t hi s pr esumpt i on. See

Far kas v. El l i s, 768 F. Supp. 476, 478 ( S. D. N. Y. 1991) .

Mor eover , wher e a j udge i s accused of havi ng an i nt er est i n t he

vi ct i m of a cr i me, r ecusal i s r equi r ed onl y wher e t he ext ent of

( cont d f r om pr evi ous page)between Canon 3C and Sect i on 445, t he Code wi l l not be t r eat edsepar at el y.



13/27

13

t he j udge s i nt er est i n t he cri me vi cti m i s so subst ant i al , or

t he amount t hat t he vi ct i m mi ght r ecover as r est i t ut i on i s so

subst ant i al , t hat an obj ect i ve observer woul d have a r easonabl e

basi s t o doubt t he j udge s i mpar t i al i t y. Lauer sen, 348 F. 3d at

336- 37.

The r el evant st at ut e al so provi des t hat a j udge shal l

di squal i f y her sel f when she knows t hat she, i ndi vi dual l y or as

a f i duci ar y, or [ her ] spouse . . . has a f i nanci al i nt er est i n

t he subj ect mat t er i n cont r over sy or i n a par t y t o t he

pr oceedi ng, or any ot her i nt er est t hat coul d be subst ant i al l y

af f ect ed by t he out come of t he pr oceedi ng. 455( b) ( 4) . 7

7 A f i nanci al i nt er est i s def i ned as meani ng owner shi p of al egal or equi t abl e i nt er est , however smal l , or a r el at i onshi p asdi r ector, advi ser , or ot her acti ve par t i ci pant i n t he af f ai r s ofa par t y. I d. at ( d) ( 4) .

Si mi l ar l y, r ecusal i s al so requi r ed wher e a j udge or her spouse

[ i s] known by t he j udge to have an i nt er est t hat coul d be

subst ant i al l y af f ect ed by t he out come of t he pr oceedi ng.

455( b) ( 5) ( i i i ) . Even t hough knowl edge on behal f of a j udge i s

not r equi r ed under subsect i on ( a) but i s r equi r ed under

subsect i on ( b) , t he Cour t not es t hat subsect i on ( b) i s a

somewhat st r i ct er pr ovi si on of t he st at ut e because r ecusal i s

r equi r ed once gr ounds f or di squal i f i cat i on ar i se even i f

i nsubst ant i al or absent an appear ance of i mpr opr i et y. See

Li l j eber g, 486 U. S. at 860 & n. 8.



14/27

14

B. Appl i cat i on

Def endant advances t wo ar gument s f or why, he cl ai ms, a

r easonabl e, obj ect i ve observer mi ght quest i on t he Cour t s

i mpar t i al i t y: ( 1) t hi s Cour t s husband, Mr . Kaval er , i s a

pur por t ed vi ct i m of some of t he char ged of f ense conduct and ( 2)

t he l aw f i r m wher e Mr . Kaval er i s a member r epr esent s, i n

unr el at ed mat t er s, ot her pur por t ed vi ct i ms of some of t he

char ged of f ense conduct . When conf r ont ed wi t h any such

al l egat i ons, t he Cour t t akes ser i ousl y i t s obl i gat i on t o

car ef ul l y wei gh t he pol i cy of pr omot i ng publ i c conf i dence i n t he

J udi ci ar y agai nst t he possi bi l i t y t hat t hose quest i oni ng i t s

i mpar t i al i t y mi ght be seeki ng t o avoi d i t s pr esi di ng over t hei r

cases.

I n wei ghi ng t hese consi der at i ons, t he Cour t not es at

t he out set t hat Def endant s mot i on and t he accompanyi ng exhi bi t s

ar e r epl et e wi t h concl usor y, hear say al l egat i ons per t ai ni ng t o

Mr . Kaval er s st at us as a vi ct i m of t he St r at f or Hack and as a

par t y wi t h f i nanci al i nt er est s i n t hi s mat t er . Asi de f r om Ms.

Fi nk s own af f i r mat i on r ecount i ng t he manner i n whi ch she became

awar e of t he onl i ne post i ng i ncl udi ng Mr . Kaval er s name,

Def endant s submi ssi ons ar e devoi d of r el i abl e evi dence i n

suppor t of t he br eadt h t o whi ch t hi s Cour t s per sonal

i nvol vement i n t hi s case i s al l egedl y i mpl i cat ed. I n so f ar as

t he news r eport s at t ached t o Def endant s mot i on are evi dence



15/27

15

t hat publ i c conf i dence has al r eady been shaken i n t hi s Cour t s

per cei ved i mpar t i al i t y ( see Def . s Br . , at 7) , t he Cour t r emi nds

Def endant t hat t he st andar d f or di squal i f i cat i on i s not t o be

appl i ed by consi der i ng what a st r aw pol l of t he onl y par t l y

i nf ormed man- i n- t he- st r eet woul d show, Bayl ess, 201 F. 3d at

126- 27, and t hat t he Cour t shoul d avoi d gr ant i ng r ecusal mot i ons

t hat ar e r emot e, cont i ngent , or specul at i ve, Dr exel , 61 F. 2d

at 1313. Thus, t he Cour t obser ves that al l of t hese cl i ppi ngs

base t hei r r epor t i ng on t he Dazzl epod l i st of vi ct i ms and

unat t r i but ed r umor s, and none of t he cl i ppi ngs cont ai ns any

i ndi ci um t hat t he wr i t er has consi der ed t he f ul l set of

under l yi ng f act s, as woul d an obj ect i ve, di si nt er est ed obser ver ,

see Lauer sen, 348 F. 3d at 334. ( See gener al l y Fi nk Af f . Ex. B. )

On t he ot her hand, t he Government has detai l ed t o thi s

Cour t t he subst ance of i t s own i nvest i gat i on i nt o t he

al l egat i ons under l yi ng t he i nst ant mot i on. The FBI s r evi ew of

t he st ol en dat a i ndi cat es t hat t he onl y per sonal i dent i f yi ng

i nf or mat i on r el at ed t o Mr . Kaval er t hat was di scl osed as a

r esul t of t he St r at f or Hack was hi s publ i cl y avai l abl e Cahi l l

Gordon emai l addr ess. Def endant ( who i s i n possessi on of t he

same mat er i al r evi ewed by t he FBI ) di d not f i l e a repl y t o t he

Gover nment s Br i ef cont ai ni ng t hi s i nf or mat i on and has yet t o

of f er any evi dence cont r adi ct i ng t he obser vat i ons made by t he

Gover nment .



16/27

16

Addi t i onal l y, accor di ng t o Mr . Kaval er s undi sput ed

swor n af f i r mat i on, he never pr ovi ded hi s cr edi t car d i nf or mat i on

or any ot her per sonal f i nanci al or i dent i f yi ng i nf or mat i on t o

St rat f or , 8

Tur ni ng t hen t o appl yi ng t he evi dence i n t he r ecor d t o

t he l egal ar gument s advanced i n f avor of di squal i f i cat i on,

Def endant s f i r st ar gument t ur ns on t he r i sk t hat t he per cept i on

of t hi s Cour t s i mpar t i al i t y mi ght be under mi ned because Mr .

Kaval er i s al l eged t o have been a vi ct i m of t he hack. The

Cour t , whi l e commendi ng Def endant s i nt er est i n uphol di ng t he

never r ecei ved any not i f i cat i on of t he St r at f or cl ass

act i on or i nf or mat i on t hat woul d l ead hi m t o bel i eve t hat he was

a member of t he cl ass or vi ct i m of t he hack, and has never

r ecei ved any benef i t f r om t he St r at f or Cl ass Act i on Set t l ement

Or der . ( See Kaval er Af f . 6, 8. ) Al so, t o t he ext ent t hat

t her e i s a r ecor d of a t wo- week subscr i pt i on i n Mr . Kaval er s

name f or March 18, 2008, t o Apr i l 1, 2008, Mr . Kaval er has

decl ar ed under penal t i es of per j ur y t hat he does not r ecal l

r equest i ng t hat subscr i pt i on or anyt hi ng about i t and i s

unawar e of any per sonal i nf or mat i on of hi s t hat St r at f or coul d

have ot her t han hi s publ i cl y avai l abl e Cahi l l Gor don emai l

addr ess. ( I d. 6- 7. )

8 As pr evi ousl y not ed, t hi s i s f ur t her suppor t ed by t he absenceof a cc bef or e Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess on the Dazzl epodl i s t .



17/27

17

publ i c s t r ust i n our syst em of j ust i ce, f i nds t hat gr ant i ng

r ecusal her e act ual l y woul d cr eat e a gr eat er r i sk of under mi ni ng

t he publ i c s per cept i on of t he J udi ci ar y. I n cases such as t hi s

one, di squal i f i cat i on i s not opt i onal ; r at her i t i s

pr ohi bi t ed. See Agui nda, 241 F. 3d at 201 ( emphasi s added) . To

hol d ot herwi se woul d be t o pr esume t hat t he r easonabl e obser ver

woul d gr ant l ess cr edence t o st at ement s f i l ed wi t h t hi s Cour t

under penal t i es of per j ur y t han t o onl i ne post i ngs by per sons

who, upon armi ng t hemsel ves wi t h keyboar ds, demonst r at e a

penchant f or t ypi ng f ast and l oose wi t h t he f act s. I ndeed, i t

i s t he l egal dut y of t hi s Cour t t o gi ve mor e wei ght t o t he

f ormer .

Upon doi ng so, one can onl y concl ude that an

obj ect i ve, di si nt er est ed obser ver f ul l y i nf or med of t he

under l yi ng f act s woul d r eason t hat Mr . Kaval er was not i nj ur ed

by t he St r at f or Hack. Af t er al l , i n an age when emai l s ar e

vol unt ar i l y shar ed r out i nel y and di scl osed publ i cl y, t he onl y

i nf ormat i on of Mr . Kaval er s t hat has been shown to have been

di scl osed i s an emai l addr ess al r eady avai l abl e publ i cl y on hi s

l aw f i r m s websi t e. Fur t her , asi de f r om a r ecor d of a t wo- week

subscr i pt i on that ended mor e t han thr ee year s bef or e t he of f ense

conduct , t he r ecor d r ef l ect s no evi dence t hat Mr . Kaval er ever

pr ovi ded i nf or mat i on t o St r at f or . Ther ef or e, t he r easonabl e

observer woul d concl ude t hat any appearance of t hi s Cour t s



18/27

18

i nt er est i n Mr . Kaval er as a vi ct i m of t he cri me i s t oo

i nsubst ant i al t o r equi r e di squal i f i cat i on. See Laur sen, 348

F. 3d, at 336- 37 ( decl i ni ng t o r equi r e r ecusal wher e j udge and

j udge s wi f e owned smal l share of st ock i n company ent i t l ed t o

r est i t ut i on and st at i ng t hat r ecusal i s r equi r ed onl y wher e t he

ext ent of t he j udge s i nt er est i n t he cri me vi cti m i s so

subst ant i al , or t he amount t hat t he vi ct i m mi ght r ecover as

r est i t ut i on i s so subst ant i al , t hat an obj ect i ve obser ver woul d

have a r easonabl e basi s t o doubt t he j udge s i mpar t i al i t y. ) .

Def endant al so cl ai ms t hat Mr . Kaval er has a f i nanci al

or some ot her subst ant i al i nt er est r equi r i ng t hi s Cour t s

r ecusal under Sect i on 455( b) . I n t he al t er nat i ve, Def endant

asser t s t hat t he per cept i on of such i s subst ant i al enough t o

r equi r e r ecusal under subsect i on ( a) . As Def endant poi nt s out ,

t hi s Cour t , i n a 1992 wr i t t en submi ssi on t o t he Senat e J udi ci ar y

Commi t t ee, pl edged i t s commi t ment t o di squal i f yi ng i t sel f wher e

Mr . Kaval er s f i nanci al i nt er est s ar e i n i ssue, and i t has

consi st ent l y uphel d t hi s pl edge. ( See Def . s Br . , at 4, 6; see

al so Fi nk Af f . Ex. C. )

To advance hi s ar gument t hat such a conf l i ct exi st s

her e, Def endant ci t es hi s own r evi ew of t he emai l s f ound on t he

Dazzel pod l i st of al l eged vi ct i ms. I n doi ng so, Def endant hopes

t o dr aw a l i nk bet ween t he St r at f or Hack and t he i nt er est s of

Cahi l l Gor don cl i ent s, whi ch pur por t edl y woul d t hen i mpose a



19/27

19

f i nanci al i nt er est upon Cahi l l Gor don and, i n t ur n, Mr . Kaval er

and, i n t ur n, t hi s Cour t . Def endant s at t empt t o dr aw such a

l i nk i s f ut i l e. Fi r st , Def endant f ai l s t o of f er any evi dence

t hat cl i ent s of Cahi l l Gor don wer e vi ct i mi zed by the St r at f or

Hack t o any measur e of harm beyond t he di scl osur e of cer t ai n

emai l addresses, whi ch may or may not have been publ i cl y

avai l abl e pr evi ousl y. Wi t hout mor e, Def endant s obser vat i ons

r el at ed to t he ref er enced l i st of emai l addr esses does not even

cr eat e an i nf er ence t hat Cahi l l Gor don cl i ent s wer e any mor e

i nj ur ed by the St r at f or Hack t han was Mr . Kaval er hi msel f . 9

Second, such i s pl ai nl y i nsuf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh a l i nk bet ween

t he i nst ant case and t he i nt er est s of t hese cl i ent s t o a

suf f i ci ent degr ee t o then i mput e t hose i nt er est s t o Cahi l l

Gor don and, t her eupon, Mr . Kaval er and, f ur t her t hen upon, t hi s

Cour t . I n ot her wor ds, wi t hout mor e, descr i bi ng Def endant s

obser vat i ons of t he post ed l i st and any r el evant f i nanci al

i nt er est s as ar i si ng even t o t he l evel of r emot e, cont i ngent , or

specul at i ve woul d be a mi suse of such adj ect i ves. Ther ef or e,

t he Cour t must r ej ect Def endant s i nvi t at i on t o di squal i f y

i t sel f on t hi s t heor y under bot h subsect i ons ( a) and ( b) .

9 The under l yi ng f act s, as det ai l ed above, i ndi cat e t hat Mr .Kaval er was not i nj ur ed by the St r at f or Hack.



20/27

I I I . CONCLUSION Upon ew of the record , Defendant has f a i l to

car ry h is subs t an t burden of showing t ha t a reasonableobserver , wi th knowledge and unders tanding of the r e levan t

, would "en te r t a in s ign i f i c a n t doubt t ha t j u s t i ce would bedone absent recusa l , " Lauersen, 348 F.3d a t 334. Findingotherwise on a record as suspec t as here would only encouragesuppor te rs o f t h i s defendant----or other defendants - to a l l egeunsubs tant ia ted c onf l i c t s of i n t e r e s t aga ins t any my bro ther sand s i s t e r s the Cour t un t i l no judge remained qua l i f i e d tohear h is case . Therefore , accept ing Defendan t ' s i nv i t a t i on fo rrecusa l in t h i s case would ac tua l ly undercu t the very po l icyDefendant prays t h i s Court to sustain-name , p romot ing publ icconfidence in the Jud ic ia ry . Accordingly , Defendant ' s motion tod i squa l i fy [dkt . no. 30] i s DENIED.

SO ORDERED.Dated: New York, New York

F e b r u a r y ~ , 2013 ~ ( ) ~ORETTA A. PRESKAChief U.S. D i s t r i c t Judge

20



21/27

EXHIBIT 1



22/27

On Nov 21,2012, at 11 :11 PM, "Winter, Janal! wrote:@AnonymousIRC: Loretta Preskats (Judge who denied Jeremy Hammond bail) husband was a @Stratfor client, his email leaked. httg:llbitly-1Y4XJ7f Conflict? Hey. You see this?! Jana Winter RECEIVED ReporterFoxNews.comCell: 646-675-1251

L O ~ : : : T T l \ /' P P ~ ' 3 K A CHIEF U.S. [ ) 1 ~ : l T ; : ; i C l JUDCE~ J . D . i ~ . t

mailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/FoxNews.commailto:[email protected]:///reader/full/FoxNews.com


23/27

A. Preska's Undisclosed Conflict I #FreeAnons 11/28/122:55 PM

F.A.Q. Wiki Donation Options and Disclsoures Resources Chat Links

22,2012

judge at Tuesday's bail hearing, Loretta A. Preska, portrayed Jeremy as a terrorist more dangerous thanof his friends and family,

if found guilty: 360 months to life. It is very difficult to find the wordsIt is anolable sadness that relates those that share it to one another and solidifies our commitment to Jeremy's

of his young life contributing to charitable efforts and actingif found guilty, spend 30+ years in prison.

of this was done with absolute impunity by thoseprosecuting him. The court, however, underestimated the weight of Jeremy's contributions and the passionof other Anons have inspired in so many people. Most importantly, the courtnderestimated the Anonymous collective and the networks supporting Anons facing prosecution. There is no

is what the State deems an appropriate/ Page 1 of 3

http://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preskahttp://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preska


24/27

A. P r e ~ k a ' s Undisclosed Conflict I #FreeAnons 11/28/122:55 PM

for the so called crimes that Jeremy is alleged of having committed, then it is our lives that weng to commit to Jeremy's cause and to the cause of all Anons facing prosecution. We will not weary.

l not be discouraged.in unjust laws and the unjust rulings of an unjust State. Hacktivists areis not alleged of a crime that has not equally exposed the corruption and exploitation of

just as guilty as those they are prosecuting? Those prosecuting our fellow Anons call Jeremy and thosemes of our State were exposed are, perhaps, illegal butinjustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." With this being said, we beg to argue, what rightka have to preside over Jeremy's bail hearing while documents leaked from the veryof having committed show that her husband, Thomas J. Kaveler, was himself a clienthttp://www.anony.ws/i/20 1211 I122/Pfrp.png & http://www.anony.ws/i/20121l1/22/uN 3 Y F pn g.

in court while the very person responsible for securing the sanctity of his trial isof having committed. The truth is great and and

of protecting their own interest, especially in their pursuit to prosecute those they consider

commemorate.10 Tweet /556,

eore the ones who smash the bars of jails. for our brothers."e demand a fair trial for Jeremy Hammond!

Safe & Secure i.lS,,1

/ Page 2 of 3

http://www/http://www.anony.ws/i/20http://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preskahttp://www/http://www.anony.ws/i/20http://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preska


25/27

1,600x900 pixels 11/29/129:32 AM

170954170055

170957

Tbu Nov 22, 112:45, " , , 2 ' ~ .

F0960

170965 170968 17


26/27

Bookmarks ]>ols Help

1,600x900 pixels 11/29/129:33 AM

Applications Places System =a_Edit 'flew HittorY

Thomas 1. Kavalerl'; V\\Ylcahill.com,,1:tcfflP,

CAHILL

( ; ; - l u n t i t j e d i : o d f : ~ 9 i i ~ ~ ~ ~ . 1 1 . 2 ~ J ~ f t , e I : ; ; o e s ~ t ~ ~ f : ~ = i [ . n S ~ ! i O R d - ; ; a ~ ~ ~ P : ~ : J ~ ~

Thomas J. KavalerPARTNER

212.701.3406 PhoneFax

Cahill Gordon &: Reindelu.pEighty Pine StreetNcwYork, ~ " Y 10005-1702Practices:Corporate Governance & InvestigationsCrisis Advisory &ManagementF.'(ecutive Compensation & EmployeeBenefitsLitigationF.ducation:City College of New York, B.A., 1969Fordham University Scltool OfUIW, J.D.1972. Editor-in.chief, Fordham LawReviewNew York University. LLM., Trade

TOOm3S.1. Kavaler iSi! mt"mberofthe Firm's ExecutiveCommittee and its litigation practire grOllp.To m joined Cahill in 1975 after clerking for Judge Milton Pollackoftht" United Slates Distril.'t Court for the Southern Di.'ItrK1 ofNew York. Ht" ilet-limeapartnerin 1980 an d was elel.1ed asaFellow of the International Academy of Trial UIwyers in 19'}6.To m has sut'l.'essfully litigated a varie ty of high-visibility mattersfo r a roster of leading rompanies (and their hoard'!, offtcers anddirectors) in virtually every major field, includinll financialservices, entertainment, energy, telecommunications, publishing,professional services, insurance. food and agriculture, healthcareand heavy manllfal.'tllring.His pral.'tice is as \'liried as his clientele. with a long track recordof victories in commercial litigation, securities. d a ' i . ~ actions.insurance, intellectual property, antitrust, employment, tax.corporate governance, product liability, contrac ts an d criminallaw matters. To m is recognized as one of the to p 25 securitieslitigators in the U.S. by Benmmark litigation and isrcromrnended by Chambers USA and The l.ega/500 incommercial litigation in New York. He is also listed in Who's WhoillAmencunLaw and Who's Who inAmerica.Tom manages ury trials, benclt trials, appeals, commercialarbitrations (and other forms of A.D.R), and administrative an dinvestigatory proceedings throughout the United Slates. He hassern'


27/27

elIZA-HeTl) ( l ) . I=1N1

Documents

Jeremy Hammond's Petulant Judge Rules Husband Hacked Email Totes Irrelevant: Order Recusal 2-21-13-2