Judge Nathaniel Gorton Faces Serious Potential Conflicts Of Interest In Case of Justina Pelletier’s ‘Guardian Hacktivist,’ Who Faces Up To 15 Years

In August, “guardian hacktivist” Martin Gottesfeld was found guilty of conspiracy to intentionally damage a protected computer in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 371, and intentional damage to protected computers in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 1030 (a)(5)(A).

The finding was the result of the DDoS campaign that Gottesfeld allegedly waged against Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH) in order to protest the reportedly abusive treatment of teenage patient Justina Pelletier, and “defend her life,” according to Gottesfeld.

On Thursday, the defendant will be sentenced; he faces up to 15 years in prison.

In July, The Daily Wire published a piece regarding potential conflicts of interest faced by Nathaniel M. Gorton, the judge who presided over the Gottesfeld criminal case, and who will also preside over Thursday’s sentencing. Since July, more has been uncovered concerning these alleged conflicts.

Prior to moving forward, one should read The Daily Wire’s previous coverage of the Gottesfeld case (here, here, here, and here).

Slade Gorton & Company, Inc

In 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 financial disclosures, District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton is listed as a “Stockholder, Clerk/Secretary, Director” in SG Seafood Holdings, Inc (Slade Gorton Seafood Holdings, Inc), which is the parent company of Slade Gorton & Co, Inc.

Under the “Investments and Trusts” portion of his 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 finical disclosures, Gorton is listed as a “shareholder” in Rocky Bay Trust, which at the time owned “all of the stock of Slade Gorton & Co, Inc.”

From 2009 – 2016, Gorton is listed as a “shareholder” in Slade Gorton & Co, Inc, following the dissolution of Rocky Bay Trust.

Under the “Non-Investment Income” section of his 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016 financial disclosures, Gorton appears to have made approximately $100,000 as a “corporate clerk/secretary, director, custodian,” as well as from “trustee and accounting duties.”

The Home for Little Wanderers

In 2003 and 2005, Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton and his brother Michael were listed as members of the board of advisors for The Home for Little Wanderers (HFLW), a charitable organization focused on children’s health. Michael was also listed as a member of the board of directors in 2003.

As recently as 2012, Gorton’s financial disclosure stated that he was a “member of the corporation” of the HFLW. That title has been removed from subsequent disclosures.

Judge Gorton’s brother, Michael Gorton, is the chairman of Slade Gorton & Co, Inc, a company that “manufactures and markets fresh and frozen seafood products,” according to Bloomberg.

The official Slade Gorton website states that one of Michael Gorton’s “personal affiliations” is “The Home for Little Wanderers, a Boston-based children’s organization…”

Slade Gorton & Co, Inc has a financial relationship with the HFLW.

Annual reports show that from fiscal years 2011 – 2018, Slade Gorton & Co donated between $16,500 to $37,492 to The Home for Little Wanderers.

The Gorton family also appears to have a financial relationship with the HFLW.

In fiscal year 2003, Slade Gorton & Co, Inc donated between $10,000 and $24,999 to the HFLW. In fiscal year 2003, one Michael Gorton and wife Karen are shown to have donated between $10,000 and $24,999 to the HFLW, and between fiscal years 2011 – 2018, that same Michael and Karen donated between $31,000 and $67,492 to the HFLW.

Reports from fiscal years 2011, 2012, and 2013 show that one Nathaniel Gorton donated between $3,000 and $7,497 to the HFLW.

Boston Children’s Hospital

The primary target of the DDoS campaign was Boston Children’s Hospital (BCH), where Justina Pelletier was allegedly severely abused. Records show that Slade Gorton & Co, Inc donated between $1,000 and $2,499 to BCH in 2013 and again in 2015.

In 2015, several months before Martin Gottesfeld was arrested, Boston Children’s Hospital donated $50,000 to The Home for Little Wanderers.

The Home For Little Wanderers partners with Boston Children’s Hospital for a program called “Safe at Home,” which, according to a 2003 document from the HFLW, “has helped to ‘divert’ a total of 67 children from psychiatric inpatient stay by working intensively with families in their homes.”

Another Troubling Case

In 2018, Judge Gorton began presiding over a case in which The Home for Little Wanderers is a defendant (Milbry v. Home for Little Wanderers). Gorton did not recuse himself despite his affiliation with the defendant.

Writ of Mandamus

Gottesfeld contends that the above connections between Gorton, his family, Boston Children’s Hospital, and The Home for Little Wanderers are enough that he should have recused himself from the case a long time ago.

In light of Gorton’s non-recusal (as well as a wealth of other troubling potential conflicts of interest and reported activities, which one can read about in the defendant’s own words here), Gottesfeld issued a petition for a writ of mandamus to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute, a writ of mandamus is “an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion.”

Regarding the writ, Gottesfeld states:

When a judge refuses to recuse themselves, the manner in which you appeal that is something called a petition for a writ of mandamus. It’s a very particular appellate process that has very particular rules and guidelines. You’re asking the higher court to mandate the lower court to do their job.

You have to clearly show that someone is not following the law. If you are able to show that very clearly in your petition, the federal appellate court will issue a writ of mandamus, which is a federal court order requiring the official in question to take particular action in accordance with federal law. Such an action would be for the Honorable Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton to recuse himself from the case.

I’m also asking the appellate court to vacate all of the findings that were made while he was assigned to the case since he should have disclosed his connections to Boston Children’s Hospital and The Home for Little Wanderers.

According to 28 U.S. Code § 455 (a): “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

Subsection (b) reads in part:

He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; … He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person:

(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; (ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; (iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; (iv) Is to the judge’s knowledge likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

Gottesfeld’s petition for a writ of mandamus was denied by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. However, Gottesfeld intends to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Sentencing

Gottesfeld’s sentencing is to take place on Thursday, but there’s a wrinkle to the story.

In December, Gottesfeld filed a lawsuit against his attorney for failing to bring up the notion of recusal with Judge Gorton. Following the filing of the suit, Judge Gorton had an ex parte conversation with the defendant and his attorney in which he allegedly ordered Gottesfeld to represent himself in the sentencing phase of his case, to which Gottesfeld objected.

According to Gottesfeld, Gorton cited two legal cases to back up his claim that the defendant had forfeited his 6th Amendment right to legal counsel. Neither case (U.S. v. MATIAS and U.S. v. GOLDBERG) appears to support Gorton’s alleged contention. Unfortunately, the ex parte exchange is unavailable to the public, so it cannot be reviewed as of publication.

It must be said that Judge Nathaniel Gorton’s seeming conflicts of interest are not necessarily disqualifying. However, they must be addressed in some fashion. As for his alleged demand that Gottesfeld represent himself — that’s incredibly serious and must also be looked into.