FNC Judge Rules against 6 Month offshore Moratorium

[twa]

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

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.

Most most people initiating shakedowns aren't:silly:

I'm sure BP would love to share the costs and liabilities(and perhaps they will),but those that dislike the ruling resorting to falsely accusing a judge of impropriety are simply trying to shift the blame for a piss poor decision and filing by the feds.

You are now BP;)

Strange how those opposed to the judges decision don't want to discuss the facts of the case

[AsburySkinsFan]

Most most people initiating shakedowns aren't:silly:

And it was Mardi gras who wanted to suggest that because Obama may have gotten BP money then he is suspect, when his approach to BP would seem to indicate otherwise.

I'm sure BP would love to share the costs and liabilities(and perhaps they will),but those that dislike the ruling resorting to falsely accusing a judge of impropriety are simply trying to shift the blame for a piss poor decision and filing by the feds.

No one was falsely accusing him of anything, we were raising questions about him in light of his investments, investments that you immediately gave him a pass on before you even knew that these were previous investments.

You are now BP;)

Not even sure what you're getting at here, but I hope it means you'll start shilling for me now.

Strange how those opposed to the judges decision don't want to discuss the facts of the case

Facts of the case, maybe like the fact that regulatory over-sight for deepwater drilling was severely lax and that there may well be other companies out in the Gulf bi-passing the same regulations that BP did, a halt until we can be sure does not seem unwarranted IMO, but the oil companies have a lot of money to hire a lot of lawyers...anything to keep the crude flowing.

[twa]

No one was falsely accusing him of anything, we were raising questions about him in light of his investments, investments that you immediately gave him a pass on before you even knew that these were previous investments.

Facts of the case, maybe like the fact that regulatory over-sight for deepwater drilling was severely lax and that there may well be other companies out in the Gulf bi-passing the same regulations that BP did, a halt until we can be sure does not seem unwarranted IMO, but the oil companies have a lot of money to hire a lot of lawyers...anything to keep the crude flowing.

Sure seemed a rush there to me,especially since the first thing I did was look at his bio,reviews and prior rulings....and of course knowing the Federal courts have strict rules on conflict of interest.

If oversight and regulation was bad and incapable they should have featured that in their ruling. (however pleading incompetence on their part opens a liability issue for them:evilg:)

There have been massive inspections done after the blowout w/o any major violations found.(both from the Mineral service and federal 'Swat teams')

I have no problem at all with them addressing safety issues,but this appears a slow walking circus act that hurts the innocent businesses and is being done outside of bounds of the laws and regulations governing them.

Maybe they will do better on the next try.

btw the BP bit was that you are attempting to shift liability from the poor federal filing to the judge

Gotta have a scapegoat.

[mardi gras skin]

And it was Mardi gras who wanted to suggest that because Obama may have gotten BP money then he is suspect, when his approach to BP would seem to indicate otherwise.

No, I did not suggest that.

Initially, there were some who were skeptical about Obama's handing of the situation. They felt that Obama trusted BP too much and that he was predisposed to trusting them because of the large amount of money they gave him. It sounded very similar to your misgivings about the judges ruling and so I wondered if you were also one of those who felt Obama was too soft of BP the way you feel the judge was too soft on BP.

Personally, I do NOT believe that Obama or the judge have done anything that should be considered suspect.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Looks like the court's "highly advanced computer system" needs some work.

The judge should have recused himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504155.html?hpid=moreheadlines

The federal judge who presided over a challenge to the Obama administration's six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling simultaneously owned stock in an oil company affected by the ban, according to a financial disclosure statement released Friday.

U.S. District Judge Martin L.C. Feldman sold the stock in Exxon Mobil 14 days after the case was filed in New Orleans by a group of oil service firms -- and less than five hours before he struck down the moratorium.

Feldman said in a statement elaborating on the disclosure that he was unaware of his holdings in Exxon Mobil and a smaller oil company until 9:45 p.m. Monday, the day before he issued his ruling.

"Because he remembered that Exxon, who was not a party litigant in the moratorium case, nevertheless had one of the 33 rigs in the Gulf, the judge instructed his broker to sell Exxon and XTO [Energy Inc.] as soon as the market opened the next morning," according to a statement released by his chambers and reported by Bloomberg News.

Even before this latest disclosure, Feldman was criticized by environmental groups and others for not recusing himself from the case. The groups pointed to his 2008 disclosure form, which showed that he had invested in companies involved in offshore oil and gas exploration.

Feldman's 2009 form, released Friday, shows that he had sold his holdings in offshore drilling service firms but continued to buy and sell energy stocks. They were among the judge's more than 100 investments, most listed in the category of holdings worth $15,000 or less.

One of those stocks was Exxon Mobil, which like other major oil companies has interests in offshore exploration and production projects in the Gulf of Mexico's deepwater areas.

The 2009 form shows that Feldman bought shares of Exxon Mobil on Dec. 28 of that year. In releasing the form Friday, the judge attached a letter saying that he sold those shares "at the opening of the stock market on June 22, 2010, prior to the opening of a Court hearing on the Oil Spill Moratorium case."

In the ruling he issued later that day, Feldman said the Interior Department had failed to show that the oil spill triggered by the Deepwater Horizon rig blowout in April meant that there was imminent danger on all deepwater drilling rigs in the gulf. By contrast, he said, the "blanket, generic, indeed punitive, moratorium" has clearly harmed the industry and region.

Feldman's order lifting the moratorium, if it is upheld, would probably benefit the oil industry.

As it happened, Exxon Mobil shares fell throughout the day, both before and after the ruling, roughly in line with the overall market. With the sale, Feldman lost at least six percent and as much as 10 percent of his investment.

U.S. law requires judges to withdraw from any lawsuit in which they have a direct financial interest, however small. Rules also forbid them from hearing cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or in which their financial interests would likely be substantially affected.

The judicial canons require that judges be aware of their investments. Judicial ethicists said that, had he been aware of his holdings, Feldman should have disclosed the ownership or recused himself at the case's outset if he thought it posed a conflict or raised questions about his impartiality. 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.

The judge may have thought the stock did not create a substantial conflict, legal analysts said, but the fact that he apparently felt compelled to sell the stock and disclose it could be seen as indicating otherwise.

"The fact he sold his holdings in Exxon does not somehow cleanse what he did in the case," Shaman said. "If he made [earlier] rulings in the case, those rulings are subject to question."

The government on Friday appealed Feldman's ruling but made no mention of any potential conflict.

It is unusual for a judge in the midst of a case to announce that he has traded shares in a specific company, especially one that could be directly affected by the judge's decision.

According to his 2008 financial disclosure form, Feldman held shares in, among other companies, deepwater rig owner Transocean, shallow-water drillers Hercules and Rowan, and international rig and tool provider Parker Drilling. Each of those investments was valued at $15,000 or less.

Feldman's latest disclosure form indicates that he had sold his holdings in those four companies by the end of 2008.

The judge remained an active trader in other types of energy stocks in 2009, as he was in 2008. He bought shares of Petrohawk Energy, an independent company active in shale gas. He bought and sold shares of Crosstex Energy, a natural gas transmission company, within one month.

[twa]

Looks like the court's "highly advanced computer system" needs some work.

The judge should have recused himself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/25/AR2010062504155.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Not according to the rules

U.S. law requires judges to withdraw from any lawsuit in which they have a direct financial interest, however small. Rules also forbid them from hearing cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or in which their financial interests would likely be substantially affected.

The judicial canons require that judges be aware of their investments. Judicial ethicists said that, had he been aware of his holdings, Feldman should have disclosed the ownership or recused himself at the case's outset if he thought it posed a conflict or raised questions about his impartiality. The court docket indicates that Feldman signed several orders before the sale.

Direct has a different meaning than you ascribe...direct as in a party directly involved in the suit(Exxon was not,nor any other of his stock)

Substantially is critical in ancillary investments(does he stand to reap a profit that would effect judgment)

HE..being the one to judge that

Reasonably...You reasonably believe a judge of his means and standing would rig a case for a possible $1,000 dollars ?

His selling of that stock should remove even the thought of impropriety in a reasonable mind.

I'm curious if you also see a bias in the govt panel appointed to address the moratorium and new regs?...or is it only oil tinted;)

added

Funny,but from a quick review of his holdings, the moratorium probably will drive investment into his stock holdings...he in effect is losing money by his ruling(since investment shift would be to NG and onshore development)

[AsburySkinsFan]

Not according to the rules

U.S. law requires judges to withdraw from any lawsuit in which they have a direct financial interest, however small. Rules also forbid them from hearing cases in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned or in which their financial interests would likely be substantially affected.

The judicial canons require that judges be aware of their investments. Judicial ethicists said that, had he been aware of his holdings, Feldman should have disclosed the ownership or recused himself at the case's outset if he thought it posed a conflict or raised questions about his impartiality. The court docket indicates that Feldman signed several orders before the sale.

Direct has a different meaning than you ascribe...direct as in a party directly involved in the suit(Exxon was not,nor any other of his stock)

Substantially is critical in ancillary investments(does he stand to reap a profit that would effect judgment)

HE..being the one to judge that

Reasonably...You reasonably believe a judge of his means and standing would rig a case for a possible $1,000 dollars ?

His selling of that stock should remove even the thought of impropriety in a reasonable mind.

I'm curious if you also see a bias in the govt panel appointed to address the moratorium and new regs?...or is it only oil tinted;)

added

Funny,but from a quick review of his holdings, the moratorium probably will drive investment into his stock holdings...he in effect is losing money by his ruling(since investment shift would be to NG and onshore development)

That's some classic excuse making if I've ever seen it. Why did the judge sell the stock if he didn't think that it was a conflict of interest? What's more is that the judge by the rules needed to be aware of his holdings and he should have sold the stock before even touching this case. But twa you keep going making excuses for him, and keep making excuses for BP, I know they need some good PR folks right now.

[twa]

I would imagine he sold it prevent foolish linkages in some eyes.

Not that it seems to have done so

[AsburySkinsFan]

I would imagine he sold it prevent foolish linkages in some eyes.

Not that it seems to have done so

So he sold it to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but only after he already started working on the case? Gee I wonder why folks are asking questions.

[twa]

So he sold it to avoid the appearance of impropriety, but only after he already started working on the case? Gee I wonder why folks are asking questions.

The only impropriety would be benefiting(or hoping to) from a value received from the sold stock as a result of his ruling.....WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE:beatdeadhorse:

Dear God man ..owning oil or energy stock is not verbotten or a conflict of interest....or a crime:pfft:

[AsburySkinsFan]

The only impropriety would be benefiting(or hoping to) from a value received from the sold stock as a result of his ruling.....WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE:beatdeadhorse:

Seriously, so you're trying to say that he lost money from selling the stock before his ruling and he didn't stand to gain if he had kept it?

Dear God man ..owning oil or energy stock is not verbotten or a conflict of interest....or a crime:pfft:

You're right, for 99.9% of Americans owning oil and energy stock is not verbotten or a conflict of interest or a crime, but when you are a judge who owns those stock and you're presiding over a case which affects those stocks...it is, and apparently he thought so too or else he wouldn't have sold it and he wouldn't have said that he had forgotten that he owned the stock meaning had he remembered prior he would have sold it before. :beatdeadhorse:

[twa]

I'm sure you are familiar with the term avoiding even the appearance of evil?

You appear to be working overtime to besmirch him,and the facts do not support you...nor the rules

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm sure you are familiar with the term avoiding even the appearance of evil?

Ahhh yes but that's not a legal term now is it?

You appear to be working overtime to besmirch him,and the facts do not support you...nor the rules

quoting an article that shows that the judge did own oil company stock while working the case is "working overtime to besmirch him"? K...good to know for the future.

[twa]

Ahhh yes but that's not a legal term now is it?

Didn't I go over the legal terms a couple of posts back?

Enjoy your crusade

[AsburySkinsFan]

Didn't I go over the legal terms a couple of posts back?

Enjoy your crusade

Then why did he do it? And why are legal professionals asking about it, and saying that there are issues here. I guess we should just take your opinion on it instead of the legal professionals.

[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.

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.

I never said you, i'm referring to the reporters or whomever decided to publish the wrong information.

Asking questions is great, but editors etc. have a requirement to ensure its correct. I'm sure nobody actually asked HIM until after it was published.

So instead of saying you could have been wrong you say I would have done this also?

Though you might be right at that if the subject had a past of this...

[81artmonk]

Someone willing to stand up to a president who appears......no is incompetent, and doesn't know what he is doing.

Not only has he killed millions of jobs with his slush-fund stimulus package, but now he wants to kill an entire states economy based on what??? ignorance?

[twa]

The oral arguments on overturning the stay for any junkies out there.

Sorry I love this crap

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/OralArgRecordings/10/10-30585_7-8-2010.wma

[Thiebear]

I believe the smallest amount of rigs in the superdeep water would be the very best things to replace with GreenEnergy. Imports after that...

but tell that to the jobs lost etc... would be nice if the windfarms and solar towers would be nice there. Back to reality...

The ruling doesn't seem outside the common sense realm.

The moratorium doesn't seem outside the common sense realm.

Neither side is doing anything you'd be shocked about with or without a vested interest.

[E-Dog Night]

[sacase]

Ken Salazaar is an idiot. He basically said he doesn't care what the courts say, he is going to do it anyway.

[twa]

Obama Again Smacked Down by Court on Illegal Offshore Drilling Moratorium

http://www.varight.com/news/obama-again-smacked-down-by-court-on-illegal-offshore-drilling-moratorium/

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of a Federal Judge last month that the moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by Obama is illegal.

One supposes the president will continue to illegally continue to decimate the Gulf Coast economy by issuing another illegal ban on drilling, or perhaps take the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for Obama, he has already poisoned the Supreme Court well, so the benefit of the doubt is not likely to fall his way there.

...

Yes I had to hunt for a good headline:ols:

The Justice dept seems to be struggling to win a case lately

[twa]

Ken Salazaar is an idiot. He basically said he doesn't care what the courts say, he is going to do it anyway.

And Salazaar does issue another ban

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39612.html

And off we go to a expedited hearing before the 5th Circuit if there are no more changes.

I await with bated breath the courts response.

[twa]

Well they are certainly keeping the lawyers employed.

Texas sues feds over drilling ban

http://blogs.chron.com/newswatchenergy/archives/2010/08/texas_sues_feds_1.html

The state of Texas has filed suit against the federal ban on offshore drilling, saying the move violates a law requiring officials to consult with the states on such matters first.

The law, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), requires the Interior Secretary to coordinate with states that might be affected by drilling decisions before taking any actions and to weigh the economic impact of actions such as the ban before imposing them.

The Department of the Interior imposed the ban earlier this year, in reaction to the massive oil spill that followed a blowout of a BP oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. The administration withdrew it when a federal judge in New Orleans blocked the effort and a number of companies filed suit. But on July 12 the DOI re-imposed the ban with some changes.

"The federal government ignored the State of Texas and failed to comply with the law when the Secretary of the Interior unilaterally imposed the Administration's offshore drilling ban," Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. "Under federal law, affected states are guaranteed the right to participate in offshore drilling-related policy decisions, but the Obama Administration did not bother to communicate, coordinate or cooperate with Texas."

next up

The Texas Railroad Commission gets in on the action

why you ask?:evilg:

(Elizabeth Ames) Jones said, “Thanks to the foresight of our state’s early leaders, the Republic of Texas entered into the Union in 1845 and retained jurisdiction out to 3 leagues offshore. That boundary was adjudicated in the Tidelands case in the 1940's and finally resolved by Congress in 1953. As established in the U.S. Supreme Court case, New York v. United States, 112 S.Ct. 2408 (1992), the Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative and regulatory processes of the States.”

She added that the exploration and production of state-owned minerals in state waters must be regulated by the Railroad Commission, which has 100 years of experience in prudent management and stewardship of many of Texas’s natural resources.

[twa]

Judge rules against U.S. government on oil drilling

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100901/us_nm/us_oil_spill_moratorium

As a result of Louisiana-based Hornbeck's lawsuit, U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans blocked implementation of the drilling ban on June 22.

The Obama administration then issued a reworked second drilling moratorium and asked that the Hornbeck lawsuit be thrown out because the first ban was no longer relevant.

But in his 20-page ruling on Wednesday, Feldman said the administration's new moratorium offered "no substantial changes" from the first one, and denied the motion to dismiss the Hornbeck lawsuit.