Courage our network

Legal Documents

Here is a list of legal documents regarding Jeremy’s case. They are listed in order from newest to oldest.

Docket Number: 41

Date Filed: 3/21/2013

Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeremy Hammond re: Conference held on 2/21/13 before Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 43

Date Filed: 2/26/2013

Docket Text: INTERNET CITATION NOTE as to Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, Donncha O’Cearbhail, Jeremy Hammond: Material from decision with Internet citation re: 40 Order.

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 40

Date Filed: 2/21/2013

Docket Text: MEMORANDUM & ORDER as to (12-Cr-185-05) Jeremy Hammond. Defendant Jeremy Hammond (“Defendant” or “Hammond”) has moved under 28 U.S.C. Section 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, 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…[See Memorandum & Order]… III. CONCLUSION: Upon review of the record, Defendant has failed to carry his substantial burden of showing that a reasonable observer, with knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, 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 of my brothers and sisters of 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-namely, promoting public confidence in the Judiciary. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to disqualify [Dkt. no. 30] is DENIED. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 2/21/2013)

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 35

Date Filed: 1/4/2013

Docket Text: TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Jeremy Hammond re: Conference held on 11/28/12 before Judge Loretta A. Preska.

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 34

Date Filed: 12/21/2012

Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Opposition by USA as to Jeremy Hammond re: MOTION to Disqualify Judge. (Nidiry, Rosemary)

Attachments: Exhibit Affirmation

Loading ....
  /  

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 32

Date Filed: 12/6/2012

Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support by Jeremy Hammond as to Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, Donncha O’Cearbhail, Jeremy Hammond re: MOTION to Disqualify Judge. (Fink, Elizabeth)

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 31

Date Filed: 12/6/2012

Docket Text: AFFIRMATION of Elizabeth M. Fink in Support by Jeremy Hammond as to Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, Donncha O’Cearbhail, Jeremy Hammond re: MOTION to Disqualify Judge. (Fink, Elizabeth)

Attachments: 31-1, Exhibit A; 31-2, Exhibit B; 31-3, Exhibit C

Loading ....
  /  

Loading ....
  /  

Loading ....
  /  

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 30

Date Filed: 12/6/2012

Docket Text:  MOTION to Disqualify Judge. Document filed by Jeremy Hammond as to Ryan Ackroyd, Jake Davis, Darren Martyn, Donncha O’Cearbhail, Jeremy Hammond. (Fink, Elizabeth)

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 27

Date Filed: 12/4/2012

Docket Text: ORDER denying Motion for Bond as to Jeremy Hammond (5). For the reasons stated on the record on November 20, 2012, at the bail application hearing, the application is denied. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/3/2012)

Loading ....
  /  

Docket Number: 26

Date Filed: 11/27/2012

Docket Text: MEMO ENDORSEMENT as to Jeremy Hammond on re: Protective Order. The Government respectfully proposes that, in light of the issues regarding discovery raised by the defense at today’s conference and in its November 12, 2012 bail application, the Court’s May 29, 2012 Protective Order in this case be modified as set forth below. Specifically, the Government proposes removing the provision that restricts the defendant’s ability to review protected materials outside of the presence of counselor counsel’s staff. Accordingly paragraph 2(b) of the May 29, 2012 Protective Order should be amended to provide as follows: 2(b) “Shall be maintained in a safe and secure manner and shall not be disclosed in any form by the defendant or his counsel except as set forth in paragraph 2(c) below;”. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 11/21/2012)

Loading ....
  /