Bigdogg;398975 wrote:Judge Feldman holds stock in Ocean Energy, Quicksilver Resources (KWK), Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy (BTU), Halliburton (HAL), Pengrowth Energy Trust (PGH), Atlas Energy Resources (ATN) and Parker Drilling (PKD). Are you really trying to suggest that he is no different then anybody elese with a 401K? Other judges with similar holding have recused themselves from ruling on matters involving the oil and gas industries. This is defiantly a conflict of interest.

Good luck finding a lawyer in the 5th circuit who doesn't own stock in energy companies. He isn't any different than any other person who lived in the 5th Circuit and has made good money for 40 years. And no, other judges with similar holdings wouldn't recuse himself--I'm skeptical that there are any DCt judges in the 5th Circuit who don't have energy company holdings. Heck, I don't know if there are many judges in the US, period, who don't have stock in energy companies. Anyone who invests in a mutual fund probably has stock in XOM and Chevron.

I guess it would depend on if it was only mutual funds. So you are saying you would not have a problem representing the U.S. government as your client in a judge's court that has a potential conflict of interest?

My answer would depend on the magnitude and details of said conflict.

In the above case I would not and do not have a problem with it.

Bigdogg;399748 wrote:I guess it would depend on if it was only mutual funds.

I have no idea whether it was only mutual funds or individual stocks. But here's a parallel:

The NFL players union goes on strike. The President orders them to continue. A judge in the Northern District of Ohio issues an injunction, blocking the President's action. It turns out that the judge, who has lived in the Cleveland area his entire life, attends Browns games every year. Should he recuse himself?

I'd say no, largely because anyone who lives in a sports-crazed area will want to attend sporting events. The limiting factor is usually money, which won't be an issue for someone who serves on the federal bench. I'm willing to bet that every federal judge in Ohio has been to a Browns or Bengals game, but I don't think that would disqualify them from ruling on NFL-related issues, even though they have a direct interest in the outcome.

The parallel isn't exact (rooting interest vs. money), but I think it's largely true--in an area dominated by something that everyone wants to be involved in but some people are prevented from that involvement by lack of money, someone who has been in a well-paying profession and located in that area is likely to have some ties to the industry. That doesn't mean they should recuse themselves.

Judicial ethics are fairly specific on what constitutes a conflict of interest and what needs to be disclosed. I haven't read his disclosures, and I haven't followed this case, nor have I read the opinion. It's fine to ask the question about whether he needs to recuse himself, but I don't think ownership of stock in the region's dominant industry for the last 50 years necessarily indicates a conflict of interest. I'd be shocked if there were (m)any judges in the 5th Circuit who don't have some sort of financial tie to the oil industry.

So you are saying you would not have a problem representing the U.S. government as your client in a judge's court that has a potential conflict of interest?

We represent clients all the time before judges who have strong ties to the industry, though we're in the public utilities context for administrative commissioners, which is a little different. It's called "regulatory capture" or "industry capture," and it's why regulatory bodies in general have a tough time regulating industries over the long haul. Every judge before whom we have a hearing has come from one side of the industry or another. That doesn't mean they can't be fair.

So the answer is that no, I wouldn't (and don't) have a problem representing clients before judges who have potential conflicts of interest.

this guy and the guy BP wants to hear all the suits against them seem very tied to the petroleum industry culture of the area and with economic ties to it.. I wonder if so many on here would be so accepting if it was in the ninth district and the judge had been a lifetime member of the Sierra Club and was invested in wind turbines.
When the oil company executives testified before Congress none of them had a viable plan to handle a spill like this one.

isadore;399965 wrote:this guy and the guy BP wants to hear all the suits against them seem very tied to the petroleum industry culture of the area and with economic ties to it.. I wonder if so many on here would be so accepting if it was in the ninth district and the judge had been a lifetime member of the Sierra Club and was invested in wind turbines.
When the oil company executives testified before Congress none of them had a viable plan to handle a spill like this one.

Virtually all judges are also invested in wind turbines, directly or indirectly. I'm willing to bet that some state public utility commissioners are/were Sierra Club members. Many of those who aren't come up through the state-level EPA/DNR ranks. I can't speak for other states, but out of our three Commissioners, one came from DOJ/EPA, the second was a Democratic state senator, and the third was a ratepayer advocate. As long as Commissioners can be reasonable and unbiased (which virtually all of them can be), no one complains.

Bigdogg;399003 wrote:Wow, you are comparing an airplane crash to the worst environmental accident in history? You must be joking. The depth of the well complicates the problem, but the real issue is this is the first time the oil companies have had this type of well with methane hydrates. Also of importance is the fact that the safety equipment and plans are at best inadequate, at worst ineffective. We should not be drilling at any depth until we understand what happened and how do we reduce the odds of this happening again.

I think we already understand BP cut corners and made unnecessary risks leading up to the rig explosion.

The 6-month moratorium on drilling was not for safety, it was a knee-jerk political reaction. And it used the pretend blessing of 8 scientists, all of whom were pissed that their names were attached to a document looking like they agree with the administration.

jhay78;400263 wrote:I think we already understand BP cut corners and made unnecessary risks leading up to the rig explosion.

The 6-month moratorium on drilling was not for safety, it was a knee-jerk political reaction. And it used the pretend blessing of 8 scientists, all of whom were pissed that their names were attached to a document looking like they agree with the administration.

So you are saying no pause, just drill baby drill?

Bigdogg;400287 wrote:So you are saying no pause, just drill baby drill?

Yes. A pause accomplishes nothing but put more people out of work.

You people can henceforth stop whining about his "gas/oil holdings."

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest-buzz/10729-gulf-oil-moratorium-judge-threatened

Much of the sensational reporting on Feldman’s investments was based on outdated information. The Judge was blasted for owning stock in Transocean, Ltd and Halliburton, two of the major companies involved in the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Feldman owned those stocks in 2008; however, he sold those shares long before issuing his ruling this week. In fact, this updated information will be released in the next report on his stock holdings.

If Feldman held financial interests in any of companies involved in the lawsuit or the Deepwater Horizon rig, he would not have been allowed the take the case. The 5th District Court uses a sophisticated computer system to check whether judges have a conflict of interest in any legal proceeding. This system automatically determines whether a judge needs to be recused from a particular case. In this lawsuit, Feldman was allowed to take the case because he did not own any stock related to the parties involved.

While you're at it...death threats against this guy are probably not helping your case either. I thought only those wacky teabaggers did that kind of shit?

fish82;400985 wrote:You people can henceforth stop whining about his "gas/oil holdings."

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest-buzz/10729-gulf-oil-moratorium-judge-threatened



While you're at it...death threats against this guy are probably not helping your case either. I thought only those wacky teabaggers did that kind of shit?

But . . . but . . . Big Oil . . . and . . . Reagan appointee . . . the narrative is too good to let go!

fish82;400985 wrote:You people can henceforth stop whining about his "gas/oil holdings."

http://www.bayoubuzz.com/buzz/latest-buzz/10729-gulf-oil-moratorium-judge-threatened

While you're at it...death threats against this guy are probably not helping your case either. I thought only those wacky teabaggers did that kind of shit?

jhay78;400998 wrote:But . . . but . . . Big Oil . . . and . . . Reagan appointee . . . the narrative is too good to let go!

Yeah for sure! There's no drama in that! :: sigh ::

Typical leftist bellowing over -- nothing.

While I do think that we should ban any future off-shore drilling until companies have very specific plans as to how they would deal with something of this nature, I am still glad that our checks and balances systems work. If President Obama wanted this done he should have went through Congress to get it done, not use an executive order.

"The U.S. federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling sold stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) on the same day he issued his ruling, according to documents released Friday."
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100625-712523.html

So his ruling is not going to affect him financially - what's your point?

I think you guys may have missed something; 6 months ago, President Obama says off-shore drilling is cool. He catches all kids of flack from his constituents. Then, an "accident" occurs spewing oil into the Gulf, using the very method he just said was a "go" - to the point that he now says no drilling??????

I think the question should be what did know and when did he know it.

Or not.

Judicial ethicists said that if Feldman thought his Exxon stock posed a conflict or raised questions about his impartiality, he should have disclosed the ownership or recused himself at the case's outset. The court docket indicates that Feldman signed several orders before the sale.

"I've never heard of a situation like this," said Jeffrey M. Shaman, a judicial ethics specialist and law professor at DePaul University. "As soon as he got the case, he should have disclosed."

http://login.live.com/login.srf?wa=wsignin1.0&rpsnv=11&ct=1277520657&rver=5.5.4177.0&wp=MBI&wreply=http:%2F%2Fhome.live.com%2F%3Fmkt%3Den-us&lc=1033&id=251248&mkt=en-US

How much did this dude own in Blackrock?

Footwedge;401863 wrote:How much did this dude own in Blackrock?

Don't forget about Haliburton.

Footwedge;401863 wrote:How much did this dude own in Blackrock?

The just released 2009 disclosure forms show he owned a bunch of different blackrock funds/vehicles (3 or 4 if I read correctly) that were all valued at up to $15,000 on his disclosure form. Cumulatively I think Blackrock products were his biggest exposure.

Not coincidentally Blackrock is the single largest independent shareholder of BP stock at over 1.2 billion shares.

Blackrock on April 20th (the day the spill happened) was at $203 a share. Today it is $152.

I don't think the judge was really voting his pocket book as the links are somewhat tenuous, but there is certainly a foul smelling odor coming from that area as it just doesn't look good.

Blackrock has been hemorrhaging since the spill, and this guy did have alot of financial exposure to them, which makes me uneasy. Not sure it reaches the level of having to recuse himself, but it is a fine line.

as the latest disclosures have shown, Feldman should not have judged this case.

isadore;402051 wrote:as the latest disclosures have shown, Feldman should not have judged this case.

Guess what? He did. Drill Baby Drill. See ya at the appeal, counselor.

fish82;402095 wrote:Guess what? He did. Drill Baby Drill. See ya at the appeal, counselor.

I second the motion.

a tainted decision made by a corrupted judge, we will see if it stands.