Federal Judge That Struck Down Drilling Moratorium Sells Energy Stocks

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Louisiana federal judge who struck down a six-month ban on deepwater oil drilling has sold many of his energy investments, a financial disclosure report released Friday reveals.

U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman's disclosure report, which covers investments for 2009, shows he owned eight energy-related investments including stock in Exxon Mobil Corp.

...

In last year's disclosure report, Feldman owned up to 16 energy-related investments.

Among the assets sold was stock in Transocean, the Switzerland-based company that owned the drilling rig operated by BP that is now spewing oil into the Gulf . Source

So the judge that strikes down the drilling ban then sells his energy stocks? While I understand that this is inside of Federal judicial boundaries, it is pretty convenient that you would sit on a case that would have a better personal financial reward if you leaned towards a certain ruling. Pretty sure if he would have upheld the moratorium, the stocks would have gone down a little more.

Further in the same article:

An Associated Press analysis has found that more than half of the federal judges in districts where the bulk of Gulf oil spill-related lawsuits are pending have financial connections to the oil and gas industry. This could complicate the task of finding judges without conflicts to hear the cases.

Wonder which side they will lean towards. :shk:

No surprise really.

very interesting, thanks for this post.
i am wondering, how much money this judge actually has put into the oil industry. and if he hadnt ruled pro oil-drilling, what amount of money he himself would have lost. i cant imagine that it would have been so much money that he risks his reputation for this. i dont quite understand.

Sold on the Same Day he issued his ruling? Busy day there your Honor

The federal judge who struck down the Obama administration's moratorium on deepwater drilling sold stock in Exxon Mobil Corp. on the same day he issued his ruling, according to documents released Friday.

Source

Exxon Mobil was among the companies affected by the administration's moratorium. It used one of the 33 rigs that had operations suspended under the May 27 ban, according to Exxon spokeswoman Cynthia Bergman White. Federal judges are required to step aside from cases that present financial conflicts, according to federal rules. U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman bought less than $15,000 of Exxon stock in December 2009, according to the documents. In a June 23 letter to the committee on financial disclosure of the U.S. District Courts, Judge Feldman said that he sold his shares in Exxon Mobil at the opening of the stock market on June 22, "prior to the opening of a court hearing on the spill moratorium case." In a statement issued late Friday afternoon, Judge Feldman's office elaborated on the earlier disclosure.

"U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman's disclosure report, which covers investments for 2009."

So you have no evidence he currently has said equities.

If a judge wanted oil companies to increase their cash flow to enrich himself via equity holdings, he would be in a favor of a ban.

Offshore ban = reduced supply with same demand = higher prices = higher profits. The oil companies are global. Shutting American drilling down will only drive the price higher and increase foreign imports (have to do something with that Iraqi oil).

Feldman exhibited a backbone by standing up to the administration/oil cartel while ensuring the economy of LA does not fall into complete ruin.

[edit on 26-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

This judge is the states only defense against the encroachment of the criminals in the federal government run from the swamps in the District of Columbia. Good for him.

Originally posted by tetrahedron

Offshore ban = reduced supply with same demand = higher prices = higher profits.
[edit on 26-6-2010 by tetrahedron]

While I understand higher prices, the higher profits part of that equation = price gouging and profiteering.

That doesn't sound like an ethical bet either.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
Sold on the Same Day he issued his ruling? Busy day there your Honor

Hmmm. Seems OK to me. That way he couldn't make a profit off his ruling, right?

Originally posted by tetrahedron
"U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman's disclosure report, which covers investments for 2009."

So you have no evidence he currently has said equities.

Did you read? Or cherry-pick?

From the same source article:

However, in an attachment to the report, the judge said he sold his Exxon Mobil stock this June when he was hearing the oil spill case.

Are you arguing that he may not have had stock in Exxon Mobil that he sold this June while hearing the case? What Exxon Mobil stock did he sell if he didn't have any?

Feldman exhibited a backbone by standing up to the administration/oil cartel while ensuring the economy of LA does not fall into complete ruin.

Ah that's it. By inference I must want my own state to fall in complete ruin?

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Federal judges are required to step aside from cases that present financial conflicts.

He had several conflicts when he heard the case and made his decision and should have stepped aside. By not doing so he leaves his ruling open to accusations of impartiality from us "little people."

reply to post by DancedWithWolves


Sounds like you got it all worked out. If I were you I'd file for a reversal of his ruling ASAP with the evidence you have. I'm sure it'll be a slamdunk ruling for you.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


If you were on trial in court for a freedom of expression violation based upon your avatar, and your judge was the most die-hard Obama fanboi on the planet who acted as if he wasn't a supporter just for your trial, would you be concerned about the possible outcome, or would you wish for him to recuse himself?

A judge that has any financial interest in a company that is part of a trial should not be on the bench running that show. Period.


reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


That's a logical response.