The hacktivists claim there's a direct conflict of interest
Last week we learned that a judge refused to allow Jeremy Hammond – former member of the notorious LulzSec hacker collective – to be released on bail. Shortly after the news broke out, Anonymous hacktivists came forward asking the judge to “remove herself” from the case.Judge Loretta Preska argued that Hammond’s advanced computer skills and the fact that he faced a sentence that would put him behind bars for life made him a flight risk.
However, Anonymous hackers highlight the fact that the judge shouldn’t be allowed to handle the case because of a “direct conflict of interest.”
“We believe a great injustice is occurring in Jeremy's trial and that the public and media deserves to be aware of it. Jeremy is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Under the current circumstances, that cannot be possible,” the hackers explained.
They claim that Preska’s husband is currently a partner at the Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP law firm. The problem is that the Stratfor files contain the man’s official corporate email address, which means that the law firm is a client of the think tank and that he has been affected by the breach.
“Judge Preska by proxy is a victim of the very crime she intends to judge Jeremy Hammond for. Judge Preska has failed to disclose the fact that her husband is a client of Stratfor and recuse herself from Jeremy's case, therefore violating multiple Sections of Title 28 of the United States Code,” the hackers state.
“Judge Loretta Preska's impartiality is compromised by her Husband's involvement with Stratfor and a clear prejudice against Hammond exists, as evident by her statements.”
As a result, they ask her to step down and allow someone else to take over Jeremy Hammond’s case.