It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Judge who nixed drilling ban has oil investments

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:03 AM
When big interest in America owns everybody in the nation that holds places of power.

The Louisiana judge who struck down the Obama administration's six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico has reported extensive investments in the oil and gas industry, according to financial disclosure reports. He's also a new member of a secret national security court.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman, a 1983 appointee of President Ronald Reagan, reported owning less than $15,000 in stock in 2008 in Transocean Ltd., the company that owned the sunken Deepwater Horizon drilling rig.

Why conflicts of interest are ruining the nation when this corporate whores are in positions of power.

Feldman's 2008 financial disclosure report — the most recent available — also showed investments in Ocean Energy, a Houston-based company, as well as Quicksilver Resources, Prospect Energy, Peabody Energy, Halliburton, Pengrowth Energy Trust, Atlas Energy Resources, Parker Drilling and others. Halliburton was also involved in the doomed Deepwater Horizon project.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:12 AM
Sorry OP, this is a red herring.

"...the New Orleans judge who overturned Obama's impromptu decision to bar deepwater drilling held energy stocks as recently as 2008. As this was two years ago and took place in the gulf region, this seems like an earnest effort to create page views out of loud headlines, and nothing else..."

and then:

" 'Some environmental groups are already releasing statements noting what appears to be a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Feldman.... However, a lawyer with non-profit public interest law firm Earthjustice told the Chronicle..that the organization did not ask for a recusal, nor did the issue ever come up,'

So, in layman's term --NO, there's no evidence that Feldman still had those said stocks at the end of 2008, nor that he still holds them during the period of the moratorium hearing. And...YES, the environmental groups would love nothing more than to see Feldman recused on conflict, but were unable to raise it as a cause."

The media want oh so very desperately to be the point-men on the offshore drilling ban and are quite exercised at the thought of an independent judiciary.

If I need to explain why an offshore drilling ban is a bad thing, well then...

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by tetrahedron

My source is still a reliable source but I will watch very closely to see if is a hoax or not or a red herring.

By all means post anything concerning this to be a hoax or just propaganda, I will do more research.

Thanks for the tip on the subject, but as we know you know how much oil money goes around in this nation.

We all know that Louisiana economy falls very heavily on the oil industry and they are afraid of the oil workers been layoff because the ban.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:16 AM
The feds are trying to kill the Gulf region and one judge did the right thing to stop them. Once those rigs are leased, they will not come back and the jobs and lives of the people in the region will be destroyed even more.

The feds actually appealed the decision thus revealing their naked aggression towards the people of the region.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:21 AM
It was under 15k, this could be in a mutual fund in his retirement even.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:23 AM
Whether or not this judge has investments in the energy/oil business is still interesting in itself. My question is how can a judge overrule a presidential decision if the prezzie has the power to veto congress and senate? Doesn't that seem kinda odd?

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:27 AM
Well just put this in perspective before you even consider it to be a hoax or propaganda.

The judge made a sound, constitutional decision to ensure that the LA economy isn't obliterated. The US may stop drilling, but the Cubans, Mexicans, Russians, Chinese, Venezuelans et. al. will continue drilling in the GoM regardless of what we do. Statistically, the decreased risk of another leak in the GoM is non-existent (even with a US ban) if these other countries continue to drill.

Furthermore, this LA judge may have halted the anticipated summer rise in oil price by allowing a continued supply to the LA refineries.

This is the most important part. The oil companies are expecting to MAKE BANK off this spill due to reduced supply whilst demand increases during the summer months [i.e. >$100 pbl].

The tentacles of the media-industrial complex run deep.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by whoshotJR

Yes but because politicians and certain positions can not have direct links to big interest many like our politicians during the time serving in government just change their holdings to another name or pass them to another member of the family and that is legal, like Condi ties with Exxon and Cheney Halliburton.

One thing that bothers me is that he neither deny the accusations or agree with them.

An as for the ban on Gulf drilling I have mixed feeling about that, as so far not security are in place yet to avoid another accident, is all talks and not action.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:29 AM
"My question is how can a judge overrule a presidential decision if the prezzie has the power to veto congress and senate?"

This is intrastate commerce. Theoretically beyond the purview of the federal government.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:31 AM
reply to post by OuttaTime

He just did an attempt to over ruled a decision it doesn't means is going to happen as long as the President holds the last word.

This ruling will only push for higher court.

The ban will remind in effects as long as is challenged.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:31 AM

Originally posted by OuttaTime
Whether or not this judge has investments in the energy/oil business is still interesting in itself. My question is how can a judge overrule a presidential decision if the prezzie has the power to veto congress and senate? Doesn't that seem kinda odd?

Not really. The President can't just run around dictating to the people through edicts. Sure, he may want to exercise power in an uncontrolled fashion but we have other branches of government to stop this sort of abuse.

And the fact the the feds appealed the decision reveals just how far this administration will go to enrich themselves and their friends at the expense of the region and the thousand of people who work in the oil industry.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:34 AM
Even if this judge owned $100k of energy equities during the deliberations, theoretically, why should that matter? Its the logic and equity of the decision that matters.

Should Ron Paul be forced to liquidate his gold holding in order to support a return to the gold standard? [ZOMG! BIG GOLD! lolz]

Even more timely, look at the holding of Congressmen with regards to the recent financial regulations. More than a handful own >$15k in stock in the companies they are supposedly regulating. Why do you think that isn't front page news?

The tentacles of the media-industrial complex run deep.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:36 AM
Well is actually the right move if the government wants to enforced and write new laws to address the problems with safety and regulations in oil drilling rigs

6 months sees a right amount of time, I think BP should be forced into providing funds for all those that are now without work because the ban that was the result of their blunder.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:36 AM
zero hedge is a finiancial blog. Keep looking marg, I think you may be onto something. I understand that oil is a huge contributor to the lives of many along the gulf coast. Those who are out of work for the six months should be reimbursed by BP. However, before opening the gulf for drilling again, each well should have to undergo inspection and the crews should go through safety training, paid for by the oil company that employs them.

My heart goes out to all the unemployed affected by this oil disaster, but we simply can't go back to business as usual. Too many politicians allow their portfolios to make their important decisions.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:38 AM
Oh, I also forgot to add:

There is no evidence that this judge even held any oil/energy stocks after 2008.

Where is the story?

Where is the evidence?

Is this not an obvious hatchet job?

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:41 AM
reply to post by darkelf

You know me I love to find the littler secrets behind the big corporate whores that make laws and run this nation.

I very much believe that most of the people in power in the gulf have ties with big oil.

Why not? after all most congress members whores do too.

Oil in this nation pays the most on campaign funds after big pharma and then big insurance companies.

Every politician have tar money one way or other in their dirty pockets.

But in this instance we need to take into consideration that is a safety issue behind the ban and while it maybe tar money going around the issue needs to be addressed because if the government doesn't do anything still people will complain

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:42 AM
reply to post by tetrahedron

Well when he was asked to comment on the accusations he did not answer back to either agree or deny.

That is a red flag about his oil interest links.

Perhaps more will come out of this.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:43 AM
"6 months sees [sic] a right amount of time"


So the people of LA lose more jobs, there gov't is revenue-less, they're getting toxic oil rained on them and the price of oil goes sky high.

Don't fall into the media trap. This is exactly what they want the public to want.

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:48 AM
lets see.... the Gulf coast states rely pretty much equally on
Fishing / Tourism / Oil ...

i think Judge Feldman was thinking little of his personal holdings, than
with 1/3 of the regions economic foundation ~oil~ getting shutdown.

setting aside any of his considerations for any of his family or relatives being affected by the 6 month oil drilling ban.

but every aspect should be scrutinized, and aired out, if only to send a message to the many other legislators that the public has had it up-to-here (hand at chin line) with their self-serving antics.

~an unabashedly 'Populist' post~

[edit on 23-6-2010 by St Udio]

posted on Jun, 23 2010 @ 08:49 AM
Haha, wait one hot second.

If this judge actually held oil stocks, he would be more likely to approve the ban.

No Drilling = High Oil Prices = Oil Companies $$$$$ = Higher share prices = dividends = pats on the back in smoke filled rooms.

Yea, this is a hatchet job.

Kudos to Judge Feldman for showing a backbone.

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in