Judge Who Lifted Moratorium Tied To Offshore Drilling Companies

The federal judge who lifted Obama's six-month drilling moratorium had interests in Transocean and a number of other offshore energy companies, according to financial disclosure forms from 2008.

Martin Feldman, a U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, held energy stocks in Transocean and Halliburton, as well as two of BP's largest U.S. private shareholders -- BlackRock and JP Morgan Chase. The law Feldman overturned would have halted the approval of any new permits and suspended deepwater drilling at 33 existing exploratory wells in the Gulf, four of which are BP rigs.

"It's pretty damning," said Kate Gordon, Vice President for Energy Policy at American Progress. "Transocean is the world's largest offshore drilling company. It holds most of the offshore drilling rigs in the world. So this is... a clear conflict of interest. I think folks should have known because of the history this region has of having conflicts of interests with judges on this issue. The region has got to have a list of judges that have these conflicts because this comes up all the time."

Thirty-seven of the 64 active or senior judges in key Gulf Coast districts in Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida have links to oil, gas and related energy industries, including some who own stocks or bonds in BP PLC, Halliburton or Transocean, according to the Associated Press. Industry ties among federal judges are so widespread that they are jeopardizing the courts' ability to do routine business. Last month, for instance, so many members of the staunchly conservative Fifth Circuit were forced to excuse themselves from an appeal against various energy companies because there weren't enough untainted judges left to allow the court to hear the case.

It's unclear whether Feldman still owns the stocks but his comments during his ruling today were telling, "Oil and gas production is quite simply elemental to Gulf communities."

Gordon responds: "I think the whole things points to a bigger problem which is the dependence of this region on oil and gas. We have to start thinking about some kind of a long-term plan to lead this region into more energy and diversity because it's like a petro-state right now."

Below is a list of stocks from Feldman's portfolio. Income not specified is under $1,000:

JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock ($12,000 - $36,000)
Also Ocean Energy ($1,000 - $2,500)
NGP Capital Resources ($1,000 - $2,500)
Quicksilver Resources ($5,000 - $15,000)
Hercules Offshore ($6,000 - $17,500)
Provident Energy
Peabody Energy
PenGrowth Energy
RPC Inc
Atlas Energy Resources
Parker Drilling
TXCO Resources
EV Energy Partners
Rowan Companies
BPZ Resources
El Paso Corp
KBR Inc
Chesapeake Energy
ATP Oil & Gas

Comments

[selahsinger]

11:46 AM on 06/25/2010

Judge Feldman owned the stocks in 2008 but sold them prior to the case. This article, like many on Huffington Post regarding this issue, is factually incorrect. I'm waiting for the retraction.

[EMontana]

11:27 PM on 06/24/2010

Perhaps he did it because it's the right thing to do for America. There's always a tendency to overreact to a situation. 6 month moratorium would be crippling on the economy and our dependence on foreign and terrorist oil.

[throck93]

03:27 AM on 06/25/2010

Remember, these rigs are still drilling to the reserves......They aren't actually producing anything. There would be no loss of oil.

[georgemanty]

10:51 PM on 06/23/2010

He should have recused himself. However, what else is interesting is that a few weeks ago the Obama administration committed to lending Brazil billions of dollars for offshore drilling in Brazil. Seems a bit hypocritical to call for a moratorium in the States and then lend billions to Brazil to do the same work people would be doing here. I don't really see the value in that. Not to mention they know what went wrong. See: http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/08/oil.rig.warning.signs/index.html

so why do they need an extra 6 months to figure it out?

[wwbd78]

04:46 PM on 06/23/2010

Maybe the judge should have recused himself, not that I believe his ruling was swayed by his investments, as some comments pointed out that many in the region own offshore drilling related stocks. However, was it not possible to find a judge whose investment portfolio does not include such stocks as to give the appearance of possible conflict of interest?

[imtruthmonger]

05:27 PM on 06/23/2010

Good question and the answer is that the circumstances demanded it.

Wiki snip:

"A judge who has grounds to recuse himself is expected to do so. If a judge does not know that grounds exist to recuse themselves (but does) the error is harmless. If a judge does not recuse themselves when they should have known to do so, they may be subject to sanctions, which vary by jurisdiction. Depending on the jurisdiction, if an appellate court finds a judgment to have been made when the judge in question should have been recused, it may set aside the judgment and return the case for retrial."

Without question, this federal judge should have recused himself and his ruling will be overturned. Disbarment proceedings should be initiated ASAP if they have not yet already begun.

[george1212]

03:39 PM on 06/23/2010

This article is propaganda planted by pro-Obama people to smear the judge who made the ruling. ANYONE of any means who lives in Louisiana (or Texas or Oklahoma) will have owned stock of a company related to the energy industry at some point in the recent past. This is not news; like I said, it is a pathetic attempt at planting negative propaganda on behalf of the high-handed Obama decision.

Just 5 minutes ago, someone was killed in an automobile accident on the Verrazano Narrows bridge in NYC; therefore, we should close the bridge for 6 months until we can determine how to prevent any further fatal accidents on the bridge. Ridiculous? Not any more so than the Obama moratorium.

[RedDog79]

04:29 PM on 06/23/2010

Why your lack of logic sounds familiar - wait it will come to me. Oh - I have it - you watch way too much glen beck.

[imtruthmonger]

05:05 PM on 06/23/2010

No matter. The law is clear as handed down by the Supreme Court and is neatly summed up here:

"In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding."

P.S.: Your score is still Zero.

[Enock Zamora]

02:56 PM on 06/23/2010

If this Judge was part of a rape case, he would give his pals clemency. That is the way the GOP like it. they can't spend enough money to keep them in every Court.

[smitty101]

09:24 PM on 06/23/2010

If that is the way the GOP like it, they learned it all from watching the DFL. They wrote the book on it.

[commonunity]

02:41 PM on 06/23/2010

considering judge feldman's relationship and our nation's love affair with the oil and gas industry i thought this song was appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_mBOgLZufw&feature=player_embedded

[aquaticus]

02:40 PM on 06/23/2010

This article might be very misleading as to some of these "ties".

1. Simply because JP Morgan may own BP stock, it is absolutely NOT an actual conflict of interest for a judge who owns JP Morgan stock to rule on a BP case. On the other hand, if a judge owns even one share of a party stock (say, BP), this is an actual conflict which can not be waived even by agreement of the parties.

2. An actual conflict could exist if the company, say JP Morgan, owned more than 10% of the party, in this case BP. Here, JP Morgan does not own more than 10% of BP, therefore, there is no actual or even the appearance of a conflict.

3. If a judge owns stock that creates a conflict (like owning BP stock), the judge has the option of selling the stock. By doing so, that conflict is eliminated.

4. Owning other oil and gas interests of companies that are not parties to a case is NOT a conflict, unless those companies can be reasonable seen as substantially effected by the litigation.

5. A judge can have a conflict or the appearance of a conflict due a actual bias or an inability to be fair in a given case. However, a conflict can not be assumed.

There are good reasons for these rules. In any event, for your interest, this is the way it works as a general matter.

[Eric10931]

04:22 PM on 06/23/2010

Great info aquaticus!!

'Never let the facts of a situation get in the way of a good story' Liberal Mantra

[imtruthmonger]

05:13 PM on 06/23/2010

Please qualify what level of (exempt) judgeship you are referring to. The rules are different for Federal judges and Martin Feldman knew this yet he ruled anyway despite an obvious potential for financial improprieties:

"In the United States, the term "recusal" is used most often with respect to court proceedings. Two sections of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) provide standards for judicial disqualification or recusal. Section 455, captioned "Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge," provides that a federal judge "shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned." The same section also provides that a judge is disqualified "where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding"; when the judge has previously served as a lawyer or witness concerning the same case or has expressed an opinion concerning its outcome; or when the judge or a member of his or her immediate family has a financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding."

Please clarify your "facts."

[Blayzen]

02:08 PM on 06/23/2010

Not really surprised at his ruling... He had 15k in transocean in '08 and he is a Regan appointee... Hopefully the appeal process will by them some time. 6 months gives them about 54 days to checkout each rig.

[Gidster]

01:46 PM on 06/23/2010

"I must lift this moratorium, as it might affect my portfolio value"..... He should have said!

Impeach this shill!!!!!

[NoSillyName]

12:36 PM on 06/23/2010

Too bad a once great country has become THE UNITED STATES OF THE CORPORATION.

Citizens? Wildlife? Environment? THE USC DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN, except when it comes to EXTRACTION of blood & sweat or resources.

[Gidster]

01:48 PM on 06/23/2010

Since Reagan, who's Secretary of the Interior James Watt once stated: “We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand”.

Goes to the conservative mindset that has permeated since they canonized St. Ronnie.....

[NoSillyName]

04:42 PM on 06/23/2010

You're right, Gidster. This debacle has really brought it all to the fore.

And now, corporations are PEOPLE, thanks to the "Supreme" Court.

[swagner89]

11:59 AM on 06/23/2010

Are you kidding me? This judge has a few thousand in "related" stocks. George Soros has $900 MILLION in stocks in Petrobras, the brazilian national oil company. when drilling in the gulf is banned, who do you think will rake in the dough?- Soros. The same man behind Center for American Progress, which controls the WH. Tell me more about appalling conflict of interest.

[Jay Alexander]

12:42 PM on 06/23/2010

You ahve links video facts to back up your lies?

[Gidster]

01:49 PM on 06/23/2010

He does not need them, he lives in Glennbeckistan...Facts are optional.

[Flappy]

12:52 PM on 06/23/2010

Another Fox crazy! Soro's controls the White House?
Get a life and some common sense.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

11:07 AM on 06/23/2010

impeach and prosecute him as an example to his ilk.

[LiberalDem]

12:01 PM on 06/23/2010

Let's not waste the money-just throw Judge Feldman in the oil slick and then hand him a bottle of Dawn dishwashing liquid.

[smitty101]

09:28 PM on 06/23/2010

Ok, but I do not see how impeaching Obama will help. but I am with you on that.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

12:26 AM on 06/24/2010

impeach the judge, pinhead.

[mrJJ]

10:53 AM on 06/23/2010

BP wants Houston judge with oil ties to hear spill cases
Source: McClatchy news

MIAMI — Facing more than 100 lawsuits after its Gulf of Mexico oil spill killed 11 workers and threatened four coastal states, oil giant BP is asking the courts to place every pre-trial issue in the hands of a single federal judge in Houston.

That judge, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes, has traveled the world giving lectures on ethics for the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, a professional association and research group that works with BP and other oil companies. The organization pays his travel expenses.

Hughes has also collected royalties from several energy companies, including ConocoPhillips and Devon Energy, from investments in mineral rights, his financial disclosure forms show.
Hughes, appointed to the bench in 1985 by then-President Ronald Reagan, declined to comment for this report.

Legal experts say the request for a single judge, while not unprecedented, is unusual, and they surmise BP is seeking rulings from a judge well-versed in the company's issues.
Lawyers for BP referred questions to a spokesman, who did not return calls Wednesday.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/26/94887/bp-wants-houston-judge-with-oil.html

[Isle554]

11:32 AM on 06/23/2010

Anyone who thinks his investments could affect his rulings, doesn't know Judge Lynn Hughes. He is an honorable jurist who has handled many large, multi-claimant cases in this jurisdiction.

[Jay Alexander]

12:43 PM on 06/23/2010

Yeah ok and Anna Nicole married for love and the moon is made of green cheese, and your mama found you in a cabbage patch

[Gidster]

01:51 PM on 06/23/2010

His millions of holdings in BP, TransOcean and Haliburton of course could not affect his judgment....

Wake up.

[Myrtle Grove Bob]

09:58 AM on 06/23/2010

Any person with even a very small investment portfolio probably has some energy related stocks no matter where in the U.S. they live. Federal Judges are no different and their investment portfolios are probably very large. Of all the Federal Judges in the U.S., do you have a list of those who do not own energy stocks? It would be a very,very short list. Yes, the people of the Gulf Coast are very economically dependent on the oil industry, but do you think we use all the oil we produce? When the people in the midwest or northeast turn on their furnaces in the winter it is probably burning fuel that came from the Gulf.

[vegaspauli]

12:43 PM on 06/23/2010

So no conflict of interest, huh? I guess we'll just "trust" him....

What do midwesterners burning heating fuel have to do with this?

[Gidster]

01:53 PM on 06/23/2010

You do realize that ALL of the oil produced locally is sold on the global oil commodities exchange right?

Just like ALL the oil produced globally........