FNC Judge Rules against 6 Month offshore Moratorium

[Bang]

Looking at his portfolio it seems rather diverse and hardly a issue imo,but there are remedies and safeguards in place if their is any evidence of conflict of interest.

Feel free to overlook the obvious facts of the case.

Henchmen?...and just who is biased?:pfft:

I've ripped BP plenty of times...when they deserved it.

Henchmen, specifically the people who were supposed to be providing oversight but were bought off with pot parties and favors. Henchmen like that clown who apologized to them.

And the possibility that this judge may have made this ruling with his own portfolio in mind is certainly NOT beyond the realm of possibility.

I think it deserves questioning, and considering the overall track record of grift and bribes that the oil companies and government share, I'd be a bit more concerned than to just it off immediately.

~Bang

[AsburySkinsFan]

Looking at his portfolio it seems rather diverse and hardly a issue imo,but there are remedies and safeguards in place if their is any evidence of conflict of interest.

Feel free to overlook the obvious facts of the case.

Come on twa you had your mind made up about this judge before you ever even looked at his investments, heck you first dismissed the article saying that the oil stocks were part of funds he invested in, and now you're saying he's well diversified.

twa, I love ya buddy and I know you've been playing devil's advocate a lot through this thread but after a while the devil's advocate needs to make sure that he hasn't become a shill.

[twa]

Come on twa you had your mind made up about this judge before you ever even looked at his investments, heck you first dismissed the article saying that the oil stocks were part of funds he invested in, and now you're saying he's well diversified.

twa, I love ya buddy and I know you've been playing devil's advocate a lot through this thread but after a while the devil's advocate needs to make sure that he hasn't become a shill.

I suggest you fact check that...I said have fun finding a judge .

Look in a mirror on the shill part,we all seem to bring a bias :saber:

[ABQCOWBOY]

Why wouldn't it be income? I thought BP was paying for lost income.... it would make sense that it be treated like income wouldn't it?

Apparently it is but I think it's a question of how much and what standard of living are those who are impacted accustomed to? For example, if the funds being distributed are delayed and or, just a percentage of what a person might make from their job, which I imagine it probably will be, then that already puts a family under financial pressure. To tax them only takes more money away from those families. It would seem to me that those families have enough hardship to deal with already. Why tax them on top of that?

The jobs that are being shut down for 6 months (maybe 6 months) are not coming back. They are gone for good. Just seems like those folks to use it much more then the Government could.

[heyholetsgogrant]

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brj2UkUPjCI&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

[AsburySkinsFan]

I suggest you fact check that...I said have fun finding a judge .

Now you're simply splitting hairs, you gave him a pass and suggested that his investments were like those of many others who invest through funds which invest in oil, such is not the case here. It's one thing to invest in a mutual fund that has stock in oil as part of its diversification plan, it's another to hold $15,000 worth of stock in the actual company that you yourself bought specifically and then to preside over a case where you will clearly benefit from how you rule in the case.

Look in a mirror on the shill part,we all seem to bring a bias :saber:

just sayin' man, before it was "I'm playing devil's advocate" but here lately it's been a bit too convincing and too consistent.

[twa]

Now you're simply splitting hairs, you gave him a pass and suggested that his investments were like those of many others who invest through funds which invest in oil, such is not the case here. It's one thing to invest in a mutual fund that has stock in oil as part of its diversification plan, it's another to hold $15,000 worth of stock in the actual company that you yourself bought specifically and then to preside over a case where you will clearly benefit from how you rule in the case.

just sayin' man, before it was "I'm playing devil's advocate" but here lately it's been a bit too convincing and too consistent.

Well I certainly don't fault him for owning oil stock like you seem too.

I'm certainly not playing devil's advocate here in case where you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

If there was any question,the feds certainly could have filed a complaint.

But maybe they were simply incompetent there as well

It's gonna be interesting to see the appeal where the feds will have to demonstrate their own incompetence in oversight and regulation to build a case against deepwater drilling....misrepresenting expert opinion is just a plus:evilg:

[Predicto]

Nice try, but swing and a miss.

Read his financial disclosure report, he's not invested in funds that have Transocean stock, he's directly invested into Transocean as well as several other oil companies; $15,000 to $50,000 worth of direct stock in oil companies around the Gulf Coast. I guess he wanted his dividend check.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/jfd/Feldman_Martin_L_C/2008.pdf

That is shocking to me.

The justices on my court automatically recuse themselves if they have any personal financial interest in any party involved in a case before them. Automatically. Every time.

[Bang]

That is shocking to me.

The justices on my court automatically recuse themselves if they have any personal financial interest in any party involved in a case before them. Automatically. Every time.

You'd think that would be expected.

~Bang

[twa]

That is shocking to me.

The justices on my court automatically recuse themselves if they have any personal financial interest in any party involved in a case before them. Automatically. Every time.

Does he have a personal financial interest in any party directly involved ?

Or are we generalizing to include all oil related services?

added

more fun

Obama accused of defying court on drilling ban

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/Obama_accused_of_defying_court_on_drilling_ban.html

From the companies' brief:

While Defendants have the right to challenge this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order on appeal...and further have the right to engage in appropriate fact finding, data analysis and risk assessment followed perhaps by additional agency action, the law precludes Defendants from continuing today to enforce the Moratorium in defiance of this Court’s prohibition against its enforcement. At present, Defendants have not filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit, nor have they filed a motion with this Court seeking a stay of the Preliminary Injunction Order pending appeal. Accordingly, the Preliminary Injunction Order is in full force and effect, and is the law of this case. Nevertheless, Defendants have chosen to ignore and disobey it. Secretary Salazar’s comments have the obvious effect of chilling the resumption of OCS activities, which is precisely the wrong this Court sought to redress through its Preliminary Injunction Order.

[twa]

Salazar tries the end a round

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2311685620100623

US to issue more flexible oil drilling moratorium:silly:

* Salazar says new drilling moratorium can be adjusted

* Drilling may be allowed in certain oil reservoirs

* New team to investigate misconduct by gov't, oil workers

(Recasts, updates throughout, adds analyst comment)

[twa]

0-2 for Salazar...Should be interesting to see his reaction to Salazar ignoring his order:evilg:

A federal judge who overturned a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed after Gulf oil spill refused Thursday to put his ruling on hold while the government appeals.

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/06/feldman_refuses_to_put_morator.html#incart_rh

btw

Feldman said in a court filing Thursday that his most recent financial disclosure report will be released by the federal courts' administrative office "as soon as their security protocol on the release of (the report) has been satisfied."

[twa]

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

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

btw some interesting insights into his finances

Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations. Such a personal attack is unfair and completely unwarranted, especially for Feldman, a distinguished judge known for his commitment to the law and a jurist who has earned the praise of people throughout the legal community.

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.

The attack was not based on facts, but it was a character assassination

[AsburySkinsFan]

Well I certainly don't fault him for owning oil stock like you seem too.

LOL, I don't fault him either, but I'm also just suspicious enough of corruption to see that someone in this judge's position stood to benefit greatly from the way he rules in this case.

That is shocking to me.

The justices on my court automatically recuse themselves if they have any personal financial interest in any party involved in a case before them. Automatically. Every time.

One would think that this should be the upright way to have integrity in the court.

Does he have a personal financial interest in any party directly involved ?

Any of the parties involved...he had better not currently own any stocks of any oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.

[twa]

LOL, I don't fault him either, but I'm also just suspicious enough of corruption to see that someone in this judge's position stood to benefit greatly from the way he rules in this case.

How so?...benefit greatly off some piddling stock?

One would think that this should be the upright way to have integrity in the court.

I'm beginning to wonder how you define integrity

Any of the parties involved...he had better not currently own any stocks of any oil companies working in the Gulf of Mexico.

So he cannot even own stock in companies not covered by the moratorium in your view?...What are ya gonna do...threaten his life?

[Predicto]

Judge Faces Death Threats After BP Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium Ruling

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

btw some interesting insights into his finances

Media outlets reporters noted that the Judge held stock in oil and gas companies and implied that his decision was based on his own personal financial considerations. Such a personal attack is unfair and completely unwarranted, especially for Feldman, a distinguished judge known for his commitment to the law and a jurist who has earned the praise of people throughout the legal community.

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.

The attack was not based on facts, but it was a character assassination

Sounds like the reporting was based on mistaken facts.

If the facts were true, it was not at all a character assassination. That's why I was shocked when I read that.

This story makes it appear that everyone in the media somehow knew that Feldman needed to update his financial disclosures, and ignored it because of their overwheming bias blah blah blah.

[twa]

Sounds more like it was based on assumptions,and you know what they say about those;)

btw do ya'll have a computer system in your court similar?

[AsburySkinsFan]

How so?...benefit greatly off some piddling stock?

Considering based on his previous statements he had anywhere from $15,000 to $50,000 dollars in various oil company stocks...I'm beginning to wonder about how you define piddling.

I'm beginning to wonder how you define integrity

twa, I'm not sure why you are so against people asking serious questions, and why you so easily give the benefit of the doubt to almost everyone who has been involved in this oil spill. Integrity is recusing yourself from a case from which you could stand to benefit from.

So he cannot even own stock in companies not covered by the moratorium in your view?...What are ya gonna do...threaten his life?

Well that's ridiculous and you know it.

[twa]

Considering based on his previous statements he had anywhere from $15,000 to $50,000 dollars in various oil company stocks...I'm beginning to wonder about how you define piddling.

It is more a question of what He considers piddling...he ain't poor

[mardi gras skin]

LOL, I don't fault him either, but I'm also just suspicious enough of corruption to see that someone in this judge's position stood to benefit greatly from the way he rules in this case.

President Obama received money from BP. Are you as suspicious of his roll in this disaster as you are of this judge?

[Thiebear]

The problem is: It was PAGE 1: (ALERT*ALERT*) Corrupt Judge lifts ban on drilling because his entire life is invest in OIL.

Then they find out that information is wrong and post that on page 23 on a saturday.

[AsburySkinsFan]

President Obama received money from BP. Are you as suspicious of his roll in this disaster as you are of this judge?

Considering he's now held them up for a $20 billion dollar "shakedown", not so much.

[AsburySkinsFan]

The problem is: It was PAGE 1: (ALERT*ALERT*) Corrupt Judge lifts ban on drilling because his entire life is invest in OIL.

No one here said anything like that, we're just asking questions and raising concerns about what we do see, apparently some don't like certain questions asked. However if the roles were reversed ya'll would be sitting back saying the same exact things so how 'bout a smidge more honesty here...k.

[twa]

Considering he's now held them up for a $20 billion dollar "shakedown", not so much.

So as long as someone takes money from them it is all good?

Must be that social justice theology coming out

Their liability has never been in question

[AsburySkinsFan]

So as long as someone takes money from them it is all good?

Must be that social justice theology coming out

Uhhh it proves that they aren't afraid of ticking them off.

Their liability has never been in question

Not by us, but remember in the early days of this thing when BP tried to say that it was Transocean's spill, so let's not kid ourselves BP wanted to make someone else liable.