What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[Ulaven_Demorte]

You continue to prove how stupid you are. The judge sold his BP holdings in 2009, so lets see a 2010 list.
You fucktard libs are laughable,

The judge apparently sold his Exxon stock the day AFTER the court case began, as far as anyone knows he still owns stock in the rest of those oil related industries. At least as of the report dated a few short weeks ago using the latest available data jan-December 2009.

*checks watch*

Umm...it's 2010.

So quick to jump without actually reading..

Date of report 6/3/2010.

The report is for the period 1/1/2009 to 12/31/2009. I'm sure the 2010 report will be available sometime next year.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So, by all means jump to massive conclusions right now!

Yes, it's a huge leap to think that the judge, who sold off SOME of his oil related stock still owns others and therefore has a vested interest in the decision he made.

He should have recused himself, plain and simple. The fact that he offloaded some of his oil industry stock AFTER the case began shows that he KNEW better.

there are rules governing this sort of thing. Rules that a judge that's been on the bench since reagan appointed him should have known about.

So either he's incompetent or corrupt. Your pick.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Have you read the rules?

Have you?
28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

Is it your position that a judge that has a financial interest in the outcome of a case should be deciding that outcome?

 

[koalabear]

Have you?
28 U.S.C. sec. 144, captioned "Bias or prejudice of judge," provides that under circumstances, when a party to a case in a United States District Court files a "timely and sufficient Motion that the judge before whom the matter is pending has a personal bias or prejudice either against him or in favor of an adverse party," the case shall be transferred to another judge.

Is it your position that a judge that has a financial interest in the outcome of a case should be deciding that outcome?

Stop watching the fringe networks and you may know what you are talking about, Cholesterol Boy.

 

[firespin]

He sold his Exxon stock before the court proceedings began. That was the only stock involved in drilling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328992416051782.html?mod=WSJ_Heard_MoreInMarkets

"Doug Kendall, president of the government watchdog group Constitutional Accountability Center, questioned whether Feldman's stake in Exxon Mobil would disqualify the judge, given the size of the company and the likelihood that its stock wouldn't be affected by the ruling.

Legal experts offered mixed views of Judge Feldman's disclosure.

"Under the judges' interpretation of the codes of conduct-which is the official opinion of the judiciary—as long as he divests before the decision, he's okay," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law-school professor and an expert on judicial ethics."

"As of the end of 2009, Judge Feldman does not appear to have owned stock in any other company using rigs affected by the moratorium, according to a review of his holdings and a list of such companies provided by staff of Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey who sits on the Senate's energy and natural-resources committee."

So any more meaningless insights from your blogs you'd care to froth about?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Stop watching the fringe networks and you may know what you are talking about, Cholesterol Boy.

Sorry, I don't watch any networks little bear. Which fringe network was it that made up the rules for judicial recusal?

You're just batting 1000 tonight huh?

 

[koalabear]

Sorry, I don't watch any networks little bear. Which fringe network was it that made up the rules for judicial refusal?

You're just batting 1000 tonight huh?

So you make up everything, we knew that fucktard.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

He sold his Exxon stock before the court proceedings began. That was the only stock involved in drilling.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703615104575328992416051782.html?mod=WSJ_Heard_MoreInMarkets

"Doug Kendall, president of the government watchdog group Constitutional Accountability Center, questioned whether Feldman's stake in Exxon Mobil would disqualify the judge, given the size of the company and the likelihood that its stock wouldn't be affected by the ruling.

Legal experts offered mixed views of Judge Feldman's disclosure.

"Under the judges' interpretation of the codes of conduct-which is the official opinion of the judiciary—as long as he divests before the decision, he's okay," said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law-school professor and an expert on judicial ethics."

"As of the end of 2009, Judge Feldman does not appear to have owned stock in any other company using rigs affected by the moratorium, according to a review of his holdings and a list of such companies provided by staff of Sen. Robert Menendez, a Democrat from New Jersey who sits on the Senate's energy and natural-resources committee."

So any more meaningless insights from your blogs you'd care to froth about?

Wrong, as usual Firespun.

Judge Feldman continues to be heavily invested in the oil industry, including in BP's top shareholder, BlackRock, and until the very same day as his decision, stock in Exxon-Mobil, owner of one of the Gulf rigs temporarily shut down by the moratorium.

As reported by Bloomberg Businessweek, another bastion of liberal intelligencia I'm sure, on June 22 --- just last Tuesday --- the very day that he issued his extraordinary decision, Judge Feldman's stock broker, under his direction, sold off the judge's investment in shares of Exxon-Mobil. As Businessweek observed, "Exxon, who was not a party litigant in the moratorium case, nevertheless had one of the 33 rigs in the Gulf..." which would have been directly affected by Judge Feldman's decision.

In other words, the "hearing" on the preliminary injunction motion took place one day before the federal judge hearing the case dumped his Exxon-Mobil stock. A "hearing" on the 22nd would have merely been a formality where Judge Feldman announced his finding --- the one he had come to while he was still the proud owner of the Exxon-Mobil stock. That ownership was an impropriety which Judge Feldman obviously understood to constitute a conflict-of-interest.

Why else would he have instructed his broker to dump it?

 

[RightField]

Half the nation has investments in Exxon-Mobile either directly or through retirement savings.

 

[firespin]

Wrong, as usual Firespun.

Judge Feldman continues to be heavily invested in the oil industry, including in BP's top shareholder, BlackRock, and until the very same day as his decision, stock in Exxon-Mobil, owner of one of the Gulf rigs temporarily shut down by the moratorium.

As reported by Bloomberg Businessweek, another bastion of liberal intelligencia I'm sure, on June 22 --- just last Tuesday --- the very day that he issued his extraordinary decision, Judge Feldman's stock broker, under his direction, sold off the judge's investment in shares of Exxon-Mobil. As Businessweek observed, "Exxon, who was not a party litigant in the moratorium case, nevertheless had one of the 33 rigs in the Gulf..." which would have been directly affected by Judge Feldman's decision.

In other words, the "hearing" on the preliminary injunction motion took place one day before the federal judge hearing the case dumped his Exxon-Mobil stock. A "hearing" on the 22nd would have merely been a formality where Judge Feldman announced his finding --- the one he had come to while he was still the proud owner of the Exxon-Mobil stock. That ownership was an impropriety which Judge Feldman obviously understood to constitute a conflict-of-interest.

Why else would he have instructed his broker to dump it?

So you're saying he sold his Exxon stock before he made his ruling.

Why didn't I say that?

Oh, wait, come to think of it, I did.

And there's no issue since he did so.

Back to muckraking for you, O logically challenged one.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Half the nation has investments in Exxon-Mobile either directly or through retirement savings.

Half of the nation is not in a position to issue a legal ruling on the activities of Exxon-Mobil or other oil industry companies.

 

[firespin]

Half of the nation is not in a position to issue a legal ruling on the activities of Exxon-Mobil or other oil industry companies.

*Hands UD some more straws to grasp.*

The guy sold the stock when he realized he held some.

Exxon stock would not be materially affected by his decision either way...it's what, a $300B+ company?

He held less than $15,000 worth of the stock anyway.

But if you're so concerned about appearance of conflict of interest, wasn't BP one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you're saying he sold his Exxon stock before he made his ruling.

Why didn't I say that?

Oh, wait, come to think of it, I did.

And there's no issue since he did so.

Back to muckraking for you, O logically challenged one.

No, he sold his Exxon-Mobil Stock before he announced his ruling, a decision that had been made at the hearing on the previous day. A distinction you're ignoring.

The judge's statement that "the Exxon stock…was sold at the opening of the stock market on June 22, 2010 prior to the opening of a court hearing" is so disingenuous as to amount to a deception. The only pertinent hearing took place one day before Judge Feldman sold his stock.

 

[firespin]

Why don't you just let this guy type for you, hmm?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7915

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

*Hands UD some more straws to grasp.*

The guy sold the stock when he realized he held some.

Exxon stock would not be materially affected by his decision either way...it's what, a $300B+ company?

He held less than $15,000 worth of the stock anyway.

But if you're so concerned about appearance of conflict of interest, wasn't BP one of Obama's biggest campaign contributors?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html

"BP and its employees have given more than $3.5 million to federal candidates over the past 20 years, with the largest chunk of their money going to Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Donations come from a mix of employees and the company’s political action committees — $2.89 million flowed to campaigns from BP-related PACs and about $638,000 came from individuals."

When all else fails, try to change the subject.


If we're to believe that Judge Feldman didn't learn that he was an Exxon shareholder until Monday night, the night before his ruling --- the appropriate course would not have been to race to dispose of his stock holdings even as he was drafting his decision. An ethical judge would have, at that point, come to the realization that his role in the case was hopelessly compromised by --- at the very least --- the appearance of a serious conflict-of-interest. The appropriate course was an immediate recusal so that the issue could be taken up by a judge who was not burdened by such a conflict.

But Exxon is only the tip of the iceberg..

Feldman is significantly invested in several funds managed by Blackrock, by far BP's biggest shareholder (over 1 billion shares are held by them). If BP suffers, Blackrock suffers, and the Judge's personal investments suffer.

Moreover,
Judge Feldman did not fully divest his interest in Transocean, Inc. As revealed by a May 14, 2010 Minute Order [PDF] Judge Feldman issued in Williams vs. Transocean, Ltd., the judge acknowledged:

"The Court owns stock in Ocean Energy, Inc. which is owned by Transocean, Inc.

Counsel shall within ten days notify the Court if there is any relationship between Transocean, Inc. and Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. or Transocean Deepwater, Inc."

While Judge Feldman may have no direct ties to the litigating party, Hornbeck Offshore Services, his various investments mean that he has a very direct financial interest in the issue to be decided. The conflict-of-interest that arises from Judge Feldman's financial connection to the issue mandated a recusal. To insist otherwise is disingenuous at best, but more likely just downright dishonest. Par for the course for you Firespun.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Why don't you just let this guy type for you, hmm?

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7915

So you're saying that it's all untrue?
I wondered how long and how blatantly I would have to take from one source before you tried to poo-poo the "blog".

You're nothing if not predictable.

Cap'n AdHominem would be so proud.

 

[firespin]

When all else fails, try to change the subject.


If we're to believe that Judge Feldman didn't learn that he was an Exxon shareholder until Monday night, the night before his ruling --- the appropriate course would not have been to race to dispose of his stock holdings even as he was drafting his decision. An ethical judge would have, at that point, come to the realization that his role in the case was hopelessly compromised by --- at the very least --- the appearance of a serious conflict-of-interest. The appropriate course was an immediate recusal so that the issue could be taken up by a judge who was not burdened by such a conflict.

But Exxon is only the tip of the iceberg..

Feldman is significantly invested in several funds managed by Blackrock, by far BP's biggest shareholder (over 1 billion shares are held by them). If BP suffers, Blackrock suffers, and the Judge's personal investments suffer.

Moreover,
Judge Feldman did not fully divest his interest in Transocean, Inc. As revealed by a May 14, 2010 Minute Order [PDF] Judge Feldman issued in Williams vs. Transocean, Ltd., the judge acknowledged:

"The Court owns stock in Ocean Energy, Inc. which is owned by Transocean, Inc.

Counsel shall within ten days notify the Court if there is any relationship between Transocean, Inc. and Transocean, Ltd., Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, Inc. or Transocean Deepwater, Inc."

While Judge Feldman may have no direct ties to the litigating party, Hornbeck Offshore Services, his various investments mean that he has a very direct financial interest in the issue to be decided. The conflict-of-interest that arises from Judge Feldman's financial connection to the issue mandated a recusal. To insist otherwise is disingenuous at best, but more likely just downright dishonest. Par for the course for you Firespun.

Tell us where you plagiarized this from, UD

You forgot to weigh in on the timing of Obama returning the donations he received from BP.

He did return those, right?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Tell us where you plagiarized this from, UD

You forgot to weigh in on the timing of Obama returning the donations he received from BP.

He did return those, right?

So you're saying that it's all untrue?
I wondered how long and how blatantly I would have to take from one source before you tried to poo-poo the "blog".

You're nothing if not predictable.

Cap'n AdHominem would be so proud.

 

[firespin]

I didn't say it was wrong (or right)...it's opinions, which are not always compelling, but opinions nonetheless.

I said it was unethical for you to pass it off as your own writing.

Which makes you sort of a compromised ethical champion at best.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I didn't say it was wrong (or right)...it's opinions, which are not always compelling, but opinions nonetheless.

I said it was unethical for you to pass it off as your own writing.

Which makes you sort of a compromised ethical champion at best.

No, it's not an "opinion", if you bothered to read the rules governing judicial recusal it's far from an opinion that he should have removed himself from the case..

Did I say it was my own work? Was this for a grade? Who's responsible for my GPA on Lit anyway? That's some weak shit Firespun. Considering I deliberately baited you into playing this hand just makes it all the more funny.. So fucking predictable. I was actually surprised it took you so long. It's late, sleepy time huh?

I cited the very same sources the author did, including the financial disclosure reports filed by the judge. There is no doubt that the judge had a vested financial interest in the decision he made, even he seems to have realized it at the last moment.

But as was said, he should not have scrambled to divest of his holdings as he was penning his final decision, he should have determined himself unable to render a valid decision of his own volition and passed the case off to another judge.

But he didn't, despite apparently knowing that he was hopelessly compromised, or at least gave the appearance of being so, he issued a decision that is in his own financial interest.

 

[firespin]

Speaking of predictable...

Cutting and pasting stuff from blogs you don't understand...

Claiming that plagiarism is fine..."I cited the very same sources the author did,"...well duh...you used their words, too....

Not understanding that a judicial decision is not made, and has no ability to effect the stock market or the value of the judge's holdings, until it's announced in court...

But sure, waste your time on this. Free country, and all that. Let's see if anything actually comes of it.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Speaking of predictable...

Cutting and pasting stuff from blogs you don't understand...

Claiming that plagiarism is fine..."I cited the very same sources the author did,"...well duh...you used their words, too....

Not understanding that a judicial decision is not made, and has no ability to effect the stock market or the value of the judge's holdings, until it's announced in court...

But sure, waste your time on this. Free country, and all that. Let's see if anything actually comes of it.

I understand perfectly, you consider that a judge rendering a decision in his own financial self interest is just fine... So long as you agree with the decision.. I guess.

Ignoring the fact that the judge still has significant investments in Blackrock, the biggest shareholder of BP by far.

You remember how to play connect the dots yes?
The judge's decision directly affected BP's operations (as well as Exxon-Mobil who he scrambled to sell off before Annoucing his decision, not before making the decision, BP is largely owned by Blackrock investments, the Judge is significantly invested in Blackrock.