Judge in hacker case is married to a Stratfor client (2012) | Hacker News Reader

Judge in hacker case is married to a Stratfor client (2012)

salon.com

20 pointsstfu15 comments

I posted this elsewhere, but I had the 'pleasure' of dealing with Hammond on IRC for several years before he was booted out of the network a few months prior to the Stratfor attacks.

Something to keep in mind here:

15:52 <+tylerknowsthis> r0b0t1: i'm on a stolen wifi and bandwidth isn't the greatest, but let me see what it is after compression

09:36 <+tylerknowsthis> what yall are getting at me for using stolen wifi? something all of us no doubt do on a regular basis?

11:37 <+tylerknowsthis> setient: try stolen wifi, tor, and proxy server as an exit

16:35 <+tylerknowsthis> feds climbing in your wifi, snatching your packets up

11:46 <+tylerknowsthis> and they get some kid for sniffing CCs at a wifi spot and give him 9 years in prison

Whenever his name comes up and people ask why he is in jail, I usually quip that it is because he never paid his Internet bill.

Even unlikable people deserve a fair trial. It's a bit strange that anyone with a close connection to this person would be allowed to be a judge. I'm not a lawyer, but aren't they supposed to be impartial, and prior experience with a person / friendship / enemy status makes that not the case?

All of that said, I suppose it is allowed for the same judge to see the same defendant over and over again, so perhaps I'm wrong here.

I don't see any "close connection" here. Where did you get the "enemy status" from?

"Preska indicated that this personal connection to the Hammond case ‘would not effect her ability to be impartial"

They spell it out in the article itself and the judge herself addresses it.

That said, I completely misread the title. I thought the judge was married to someone that had tried this person before so there might be a bit of a vendetta there. I was clearly wrong.

I don't think I ever stated anywhere that he doesn't deserve a fair trial--where did I say that I was against that idea? If we don't give him a fair trial, who is to say anyone else doesn't deserve one either?

I am not sure why you're trying to point out otherwise when referring to me.

You were pointing out details of his character, saying talking to him was a, sarcastic, pleasure; and pointing out some less than desirable activities he's admitted to doing in the past, presumably with your correspondence there.

In my reading of what you said, it felt as though you had a bias against this person. In my previous misunderstanding of the article, I read your argument as "well, maybe he doesn't deserve an unbiased judge" and you were providing an exert of a conversation with him that was intended to make us, too, displeased with him.

If I misunderstood what you said and your intent in saying it, I apologize

Of course I have a bias just like any one of his supporters would too. In my case, he had threatened violence against me and I have heard from others that they received the same treatment too--this is anecdotal but what isn't in these situations? His behaviour towards me and others is abhorrent and just because he has yet to be convicted does not mean that you can completely toss aside my views of him as an individual.

However, it is disingenuous to suggest for a moment that I am asking for all fair trials to be put aside for those who I have personal issues with. I want everyone, regardless of foe or friend, to have the same treatment that I would expect for myself.

Everyone deserve a fair trial, but it's a different thing to try to have a judge recuse herself based on a tenuous connection. The connection here is that the judge's husband is allegedly one of the 860,000 Stratfor clients affected by the hack. That's way too tenuous a connection. A valid basis for recusal would be something like her husband being one of the owners of Stratfor.

That makes more sense

Activist? That's total BS. All he did was publish the personal information, including credit card details, of innocent victims such as myself. I really have no sympathy for him.

I agree. These criminals obviously don't have a right to justice if they can't even follow the law.

how about putting real truth about him on his wikipedia page? As of now the page is full of what you call "total BS".

Lots of people have been Stratfor clients, it's a useful service for many people. To clarify, Stratfor wasn't aggressing against "hackers" in any way. If lulzsec decided to attack the Economist and the judge's spouse was subscribed to the Economist, well, lots of people subscribe to the Economist...

Background information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Hammond#Current_Case

Can we get a (2012) added to the title? This is old.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com