UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

United States of America,
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
- v.
Jeremy Hammond,
Defendant.
- -x
LORETTA A. PRESKA, Chief United States District Judge:
Defendant Jeremy Hammond ("Defendant
fT
or "Hammond'/)
has moved under 28 U.S.C. 455 to disqualify this Court from
presiding in this action [dkt. no. 30]. Defendant claims that
an appearance of partiality and an appearance of financial
interest are too strong to be disregarded because (1) online
postings purport to show that Thomas J. Kavaler
l
this Court's
husband, is an alleged victim of some of the charged offense
conduct, and (2) Mr. Kavaler's law firm represents, in unrelated
matters, "other prominent victims" of some of the charged
offense conduct. For the reasons that follow, the motion is
DENIED.
I . BACKGROUND
Defendant is charged in a superseding indictment [dkt.
no. 9] with participating in a series of computer break-ins and
data thefts from computer networks operated by various
1
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 Depar t ment of Publ i c Saf et y, a st at e
l aw enf or cement or gani zat i on. ( I d. 17- 26, 26( f ) - 29. ) Count s
Thr ee, Four , Fi ve, and Si x char ge Def endant wi t h anot her 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

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 t o have, among ot her t hi ngs:
i . st ol e[ n] conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on . . .
i ncl udi ng appr oxi mat el y 60, 000 cr edi t car d number s and
associ 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 car dhol der s names and addr esses, as
wel l as t he car ds secur i t y codes and expi r at i on
dat es; r ecor ds f or appr oxi mat el y 860, 000 St r at f or
cl 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; . . . and
i nt er nal St r at f or cor por at e document s;

i i . used some of t he st ol en cr edi 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 hat
had 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, cr edi t car d
number s, user names, and emai l addr esses f or t housands
of St r at f or cl 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 Gover nment s Memor andumi n Opposi t i on t o Def endant s
Mot i on f or Di squal i f i cat i on ( Gov t Br . ) [ dkt . no. 34] , t he
Gover nment not es t hat at l east appr oxi mat el y 200 gi gabyt es of
conf i dent i al i nf or mat i on f r omSt r af or s comput er syst ems i s
al l eged t o have been st ol en as par t of t he St r at f or Hack. ( Gov t
Br . , 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 o
appr oxi mat el y 675, 000 pages of t ext . ( I d. at n. 1. )
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 cr edi t car d i nf or mat i on St r at f or had on
f i l e on December 24, 2011, and whose cr edi t car d i nf or mat 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 or age 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 ecor ds. 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 zabet h 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 oma
r epor t 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 ct i ms of t he St r at f or Hack ( t he
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 mat 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 r el ayed t o t he Cour t : ( 1) t he emai l she r ecei ved
f r omt 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 appear ed 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 scr eenshot of Mr . Kaval er s pr of i l e page
f r omCahi l l Gor don s websi t e.
3

2
Accor di ng t o Def endant s Memor andumof Law i n Suppor t of
Def endant s Mot i on f or Di squal i f i cat i on [ dkt . no. 32] , t he
websi t e ht t p: / / dazzl epod. com/ st r at f or cont ai ns a l i st of emai l s
made avai l abl e so t hat St r at f or user s can check i f t hey wer e
vi ct i ms of t he hack. ( See Memo. of Law i n Suppor t 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 not ed dur i ng
3
A copy of t he emai l f r omt he r epor t er i s at t ached t o t he
Af 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

t he t el ephone conf er ence t hat she bel i eved Mr . Kaval er s cr edi t
car d i nf or mat i on may have been di ssemi nat ed as a r esul t of t he
hack, a r evi 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 or mat i on not ed 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 t hat Mr . Kaval er has been a
par t ner at Cahi l l Gor don si nce 1980 and i s one of si x member s 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 ompr evi ous page)
Def endant , however , di d not at t ach t o hi s Br i ef copi es of t he
ot her t hr ee i t ems del i ver ed t o t he Cour t . As such, t he Cour t
has at t ached Ms. Fi nk s f ul l submi ssi on t o t he Cour t , as
r 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 s
emai l addr ess i s pr eceded by a cc i f t hat user s cr edi t car d
i nf or mat 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 o
r ef l ect t hi s di st i nct i on) . Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess i s not
pr eceded by a cc. ( See Ex. 1, at 4. )
7

Mer r i l l Lynch appear s t o have been par t i cul ar l y
i mpact ed by t he hack; over 800 account s associ at ed
wi t h Mer r i l l Lynch emai l addr esses wer e compr omi sed.
Cahi l l Gor don has over seen hundr eds of mi l l i ons of
dol l ar s i n i nvest ment banki ng ar r angement s f or Mer r i l l
Lynch. I n 2006, Cahi l l Gor don act ed as speci al
counsel t o Mer r i l l Lynch, i n t hei r capaci t y as
Admi ni st r at i ve Agent , on an i nvest ment banki ng
ar r angement wi t h anot her St r at f or cl i ent , AES
Cor por at i on, br oker i ng a $600, 000, 000 cr edi t agr eement
bet ween t he t wo compani es. Accor di ng t o a news
r el ease dat ed November 27, 2012[ , ] on t he Cahi l l
Gor don websi t e, t he f i r m r ecent l y r epr esent ed Mer r i l l
Lynch i n anot her i nvest ment banki ng deal i nvol vi ng an
of 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 omwebsi t es of f er i ng t hei r ver si ons of
t he i nf or mat 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 t he 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 suppor t 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

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 Gover nment r esponded t o Def endant s mot i on on
December 21, 2012, and t her ei n i nf or med t hi s Cour t t hat
[ a] gent s of t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on
have i nvest i gat ed t he def endant s cl ai ms r egar di ng t he
t hef t of Mr . Kaval er s per sonal dat a as a r esul t of
t he St r at f or Hack, i ncl udi ng r evi ewi ng t he dat a t hat
t he Gover nment al l eges t he def endant st ol e f r om
St 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, and
conf i r mi ng t hat i nf or mat i on wi t h St r at f or . Based on
t 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 of
t he hack was Mr . Kaval er s publ i cl y avai l abl e l aw f i r m
emai l addr ess; St r at f or s dat a di d not cont ai n any
cr 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 a
subscr i pt i on associ at ed wi t h Mr . Kavavl er s Cahi l l
Gor don emai l addr ess f or t he per i od bet ween Mar ch 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 no
r 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 t he Gover nment s Br i ef i s a swor n
af f i r mat i on f r omMr . 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 r ecei ve[ s]
unsol i ci t ed emai l s f r ombusi nesses and ot her or gani zat i ons . . .
[ and] r ecei ve[ s] f r omSt r at f or f r omt 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

( 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 r esul 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
Gor don emai l addr ess, St r at f or does not have any per sonal
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 or mat 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 omhi s counsel and wi t h
t he consent of t he Gover nment had unt i l Febr uar y 4, 2013, t o
r epl y t o t he 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 t o 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

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 or al ar gument on Febr uar y
21, 2013.
I I . DI SCUSSI ON
A. The Law
The deci si on t o gr ant or deny a r ecusal mot i on i s
commi t t ed t o t he sound di scr et i on of t he j udge t o whomt he
mot i on i s di r ect ed. See I n r e Dr exel Bur nhamLamber 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 t he 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 t o 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 spr opor t i onat e 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 r umor s, i nnuendos, and er r oneous i nf or mat i on, I n
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 r emot 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 andar ds 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
Cor p. , 775 F. Supp. 1506, 1533 ( D. Conn. 1991) ( gr ant of an
unf ounded mot i on woul d under mi ne publ i c conf i dence i n t he
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 t wo subsect i ons of Sect i on 455: ( a) and ( b) .
6

6
Def endant s Br i ef al so r el i es on Canon 3C of t he Code of
Conduct f or Uni t ed St at es J udges ( a sour ce of l aw t o whi ch t he
Gover nment 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 he
Code by al l t hose aut hor i zed t o per f or mj udi ci al f unct i ons i s
essent i al t o our syst emof j ust i ce, t he Cour t not es t hat [ t ] he
Code 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 n
cer 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 nal
ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The onl y r emedi es f or vi ol at i on of t he Code
ar 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 o
di 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

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) .
Rat her , a j udge i s pr esumed t o be i mpar t i al and t he movi ng par t y
bear s 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 mof 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 ompr evi ous page)
bet ween Canon 3C and Sect i on 445, t he Code wi l l not be t r eat ed
separ at el y.
13

t he j udge s i nt er est i n t he cr i me vi ct i mi s so subst ant i al , or
t he amount t hat t he vi ct i mmi 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. Lauer sen, 348 F. 3d at
336- 37.
The r el evant st at ut e al so pr ovi 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 a
l egal or equi t abl e i nt er est , however smal l , or a r el at i onshi p as
di r ect or , advi ser , or ot her act i ve par t i ci pant i n t he af f ai r s of
a par t y. I d. at ( d) ( 4) .

Si mi l ar l y, r ecusal i s al so r equi r ed wher e a j udge or her spouse
[ i s] known by t he j udge t o 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

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 obser ver 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 mof some of t he char ged of f ense conduct and ( 2)
t he l aw f i r mwher 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 mof 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 omMs.
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 epor t s at t ached t o Def endant s mot i on ar e evi dence
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 or med 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 t hat 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 umt 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 Gover nment has det ai l ed t o t hi 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
Gor don 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 r epl 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

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 r at 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 mof 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 mt o bel i eve t hat he was
a member of t he cl ass or vi ct i mof t he hack, and has never
r ecei ved any benef i t f r omt 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 Mar ch 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 absence
of a cc bef or e Mr . Kaval er s emai l addr ess on t he Dazzl epod
l i st .
17

publ i c s t r ust i n our syst emof 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 her wi 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 ar mi 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 or mer .
Upon doi ng so, one can onl y concl ude t hat 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 or mat i on of Mr . Kaval er s t hat has been shown t o 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 oma r ecor d of a t wo- week
subscr i pt i on t hat ended mor e t han t hr 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
obser ver woul d concl ude t hat any appear ance of t hi s Cour t s
18

i nt er est i n Mr . Kaval er as a vi ct i mof t he cr i 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 shar e 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 cr i me vi ct i mi s so
subst ant i al , or t he amount t hat t he vi ct i mmi 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

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 t he St r at f or
Hack t o any measur e of har mbeyond t he di scl osur e of cer t ai n
emai l addr esses, 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 t o t he r ef 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 t he 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 t hen 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 t he St r at f or Hack.
III. CONCLUSION
Upon ew of the record, Defendant has fail to
carry his substant burden of showing that a reasonable
observer, with knowledge and understanding of the relevant
, would "entertain significant doubt that justice would be
done absent recusal," Lauersen, 348 F.3d at 334. Finding
otherwise on a record as suspect as here would only encourage
supporters of this defendant----or other defendants-to allege
unsubstantiated conflicts of interest against any my brothers
and sisters the Court until no judge remained qualified to
hear his case. Therefore, accepting Defendant's invitation for
recusal in this case would actually undercut the very policy
Defendant prays this Court to sustain-name ,promoting public
confidence in the Judiciary. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to
disqualify [dkt. no. 30] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: New York, New York
2013

LORETTA A. PRESKA
Chief U.S. District Judge
20
EXHIBIT 1
On Nov 21,2012, at 11 :11 PM, "Winter, Janal! <jana.winter@FOXNEW8.COM> 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
Reporter
FoxNews.com
Cell: 646-675-1251
/'
CHIEF U.S. JUDCE
t
Loretta A. Preska's Undisclosed Conflict I #FreeAnons 11/28/122:55 PM
#FreeAnons
Anonymous Solidarity Network
F.A.Q.
Wiki
Donation Options and Disclsoures
Resources
Chat
Links
November 22,2012
Loretta A. Preska's Undisclosed Conflict
A judge at Tuesday's bail hearing, Loretta A. Preska, portrayed Jeremy as a terrorist more dangerous than
murderers and sexual predators, denied his bail and, before Jeremy and a gathering of his friends and family,
announced the sentence he would face if found guilty: 360 months to life. It is very difficult to find the words
to express the pain we feel after the court's decision Tuesday to deny bail for Jeremy Hammond. It is an
inconsolable sadness that relates those that share it to one another and solidifies our commitment to Jeremy's
cause. Jeremy, only 27 years old, has spent most of his young life contributing to charitable efforts and acting
on his principles to right what he perceives as wrong. Now, due to his contributions to the Anonymous
collective, Jeremy could, if found guilty, spend 30+ years in prison.
Jeremy was vilified and his contributions bastardized. All of this was done with absolute impunity by those
prosecuting him. The court, however, underestimated the weight of Jeremy's contributions and the passion
his actions and the actions of other Anons have inspired in so many people. Most importantly, the court
underestimated the Anonymous collective and the networks supporting Anons facing prosecution. There is no
comfort for us so long as Anons are prosecuted. If a life sentence is what the State deems an appropriate
http://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preska/ Page 1 of 3
Loretta A. Undisclosed Conflict I #FreeAnons 11/28/122:55 PM
punishment for the so called crimes that Jeremy is alleged of having committed, then it is our lives that we
are willing to commit to Jeremy's cause and to the cause of all Anons facing prosecution. We will not weary.
We will not be discouraged.
We will seek the truth and find justice in unjust laws and the unjust rulings of an unjust State. Hacktivists are
not criminals! Jeremy is not alleged of a crime that has not equally exposed the corruption and exploitation of
the very State prosecuting him. Lady justice is blind! Where is the justice when those whom she has anointed
are just as guilty as those they are prosecuting? Those prosecuting our fellow Anons call Jeremy and those
like him a criminal. The means by which the crimes of our State were exposed are, perhaps, illegal but
"When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty." With this being said, we beg to argue, what right
does Loretta A. Preska have to preside over Jeremy's bail hearing while documents leaked from the very
hack Jeremy is accused of having committed show that her husband, Thomas J. Kaveler, was himself a client
of Strafor; http://www .anony.ws/i/20 1211 I122/Pfrp.png & http://www.anony.ws/i/20 121l1/22/uN 3 Y F .pn g.
Jeremy has been demonized to such an extent that those who know him can not even recognize the person
prosecutors portray him as in court while the very person responsible for securing the sanctity of his trial is
herself directly associated with the crimes Jeremy is accused of having committed. The truth is great and and
wants to be known. The truth is, Jeremy has done no wrong and those determined to prosecute him are guilty.
The State is guilty of protecting their own interest, especially in their pursuit to prosecute those they consider
dangerous to their agenda. Jeremy Hammond is and will always be a hero and his contributions to the
Anonymous collective are and will always be an example for which others will follow. An example for which
we, the Anonymous Solidarity Network, will continue to commemorate.
10 Tweet /556,
Written by admin Posted in Uncategorized
Comments are closed.
"Weore the ones who smash the bars of jails. for our brothers."
We demand a fair trial for Jeremy Hammond!
Safe & Secure i.lS,,1
http://freeanons.org/loretta-a-preska/ Page 2 of 3
Pfrp.png 1,600x900 pixels 11/29/129:32 AM
170954
170055
170957
Tbu Nov 22, 112:45
, " , , 2 ' ~ .
F0960
170965
170968
17<)007
170969
170970
170911
http://www.anony.ws(i/2012/11/22/Pfrp.png
Page 1 of 1
Bookmarks ]>ols Help
uN3YF.png 1,600x900 pixels 11/29/129:33 AM
Applications Places System =a_
Ble Edit 'flew HittorY
I' Thomas 1. Kavaler
l'; V\\Ylcahill.com,,1:tcfflP,
CAHILL

Thomas J. Kavaler
PARTNER
212.701.3406 Phone
Fax
Cahill Gordon &: Reindelu.p
Eighty Pine Street
NcwYork, 10005-1702
Practices:
Corporate Governance & Investigations
Crisis Advisory &Management
F.'(ecutive Compensation & Employee
Benefits
Litigation
F.ducation:
City College of New York, B.A., 1969
Fordham University Scltool OfUIW, J.D.
1972. Editor-in.chief, Fordham Law
Review
NewYork University. LLM., Trade
TOOm3S.1. Kavaler iSi! mt"mberofthe Firm's Executive
Committee and its litigation practire grOllp.
Tomjoined Cahill in 1975 after clerking for Judge Milton Pollack
oftht" United Slates Distril.'t Court for the Southern Di.'ItrK1 of
NewYork. Ht" ilet-limeapartnerin 1980 and was elel.1ed asa
Fellowof the International Academy ofTrial UIwyers in 19'}6.
Tom has sut'l.'essfully litigated a variety of high-visibility matters
for a roster of leading rompanies (and their hoard'!, offtcers and
directors) in virtually every major field, includinll financial
services, entertainment, energy, telecommunications, publishing,
professional services, insurance. food and agriculture, healthcare
and heavy manllfal.'tllring.
His pral.'tice is as \'liried as his clientele. with a long track record
of victories in commercial litigation, securities. actions.
insurance, intellectual property, antitrust, employment, tax.
corporate governance, product liability, contracts andcriminal
law matters. Tom is recognized as one of the top 25 securities
litigators in the U.S. by Benmmark litigation and is
rcromrnended by Chambers USA and The l.ega/500 in
commercial litigation in NewYork. He is also listed in Who's Who
ill AmencunLaw and Who's Who inAmerica.
Tom manages jury trials, benclt trials, appeals, commercial
arbitrations (and other forms of A.D.R), and administrative and
investigatory proceedings throughout the United Slates. He has
sern'<l as an arbitrator for the American Arbitration Association,
National Association of Securities Dealers, Better Business
Bureau. NewYork Supreme Court and United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.
http://www.anony.ws/i/2012/11/22/uN3YF.png Page 1 of 1
elIZA-HeTl) (l). I=1N1<
ATToRNey AT LAW
36 PLAZA. STReeT,
"BRookLYN, NY 11238
fiON. A A
rrlr1f?3 O/lriLlc. r JvPt,G'
C,tllt',: liS DIS(!'!ur JrJOf-Jf
r()D f A-tt/.. "..,..
..
tJ '1 oJe"c:.. ,..J"! I ()1) l) 7