White House Will Appeal .. Judge Holds Stock In Drilling Companies

thoughtone

Rising Star
Registered
source: Mother Jones

Judge Who Struck Down Moratorium Has Owned Transocean Stock

A federal judge in New Orleans on Tuesday sided with the oil industry, striking down the temporary moratorium on new offshore exploration and deepwater drilling the Obama administration imposed last month. That judge, it turns out, has in recent years had interests in Transocean—the world's largest offshore drilling company and the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig—as well as other energy companies engaged in offshore oil extraction.

According to the most recently available financial disclosure form for District Court Judge Martin Feldman, he had holdings of up to $15,000 in Transocean in 2008. He has also recently owned stock in offshore drilling or oilfield service providers Halliburton, Prospect Energy, Hercules Offshore, Parker Drilling Co., and ATP Oil & Gas. Feldman was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983.

Obama's six-month moratorium put the brakes on the approval of new permits for deepwater drilling and suspended work at 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf. A group of oil and gas companies, with the support of the state of Louisiana, asked the court to throw out the moratorium so they can continue drilling. Feldman heard two hours of arguments Monday on whether grant an injunction to lift the moratorium before rendering his decision today. Describing the moratorium as "arbitrary and capricous," Feldman wrote in his opinion: "If some drilling equipment parts are flawed, is it rational to say all are? Are all airplanes a danger because one was? All oil tankers like Exxon Valdez? All trains? All mines? That sort of thinking seems heavy-handed, and rather overbearing."

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said the Obama administration would immediately appeal Feldman's ruling.

The plaintiffs in the suit included Hornbeck Offshore Services, Bollinger Shipyard Companies, Bee Mar Deepwater Vessels Companies and Chouest Shore Side, Vessel, and Shipyard Companies. The Sierra Club, the Florida Wildlife Federation, and several other environmental groups filed briefs in support of the administration.

While not party to the lawsuit, Transocean has been highly critical of the moratorium. Speaking at an industry conference in London on Tuesday, CEO Steven Newman called the moratorium "arbitrary."

Feldman's most recent finanical disclosures are not yet available online, so it remains unclear whether he still has holdings in Transocean and a host of other firms with a stake in the verdict he rendered on Tuesday. If he does, that raises the question of whether he should have barred from hearing the case because of his financial interests. But in Louisiana it's hard to find hard to find a judge without ties to the industry. In the Gulf region, 37 of 64 federal judges have some ties to the oil sector.
 
^^^?

Emotional responses :smh:

I read it. With that said, and if I follow you're response then is it safe to say Obama should be taken to task for taking BP campaign funds. He took them because it was legal. There is no law prohibiting a judge in participating in the free market. This is really reaching. Can you post the law that was broken? I'll be waiting:D

I'm a straight shooter my friend. Far from emotional. I know liberals don't like to be challenged.

Peace
 
careful what you ask for guys!

"While we dream about a new energy system that is decades in the future, the prices that consumers will have to pay for things like gasoline, electricity, and diesel would just skyrocket" if America halts offshore driller, Hofmeister tells Aaron and Henry in the accompanying segment. "Prices could get to the point where fixed-income and low-income people are simply taken out of the personal mobility marketplace, which would be a shock and unnecessary because of our unwillingness to produce domestic resources."

John Hofmeister - former President of Shell Oil
 
I read it. With that said, and if I follow you're response then is it safe to say Obama should be taken to task for taking BP campaign funds. He took them because it was legal. There is no law prohibiting a judge in participating in the free market. This is really reaching. Can you post the law that was broken? I'll be waiting:D

I'm a straight shooter my friend. Far from emotional. I know liberals don't like to be challenged.

Peace
If you're such a straight shooter do us all favor and go to the mirror and take the kill shot. Look up conflict of interest.
If you want to argue about whether politician campaign contributions make them beholden to donors make a thread about it and I bet most here would agree.
 
If you're such a straight shooter do us all favor and go to the mirror and take the kill shot. Look up conflict of interest.
If you want to argue about whether politician campaign contributions make them beholden to donors make a thread about it and I bet most here would agree.
:lol: You made a funny.
So does the same go for Obama?:D

So is it safe to say that Obama's slow response to the oil spill is due in part to him receiving contributions from BP? Also that he only responded after his own started to turn on him.
 
Shell Oil

This should tell you something.


The price of oil has been down over the last year and a half.

What is he telling us Thought? :cool: Is he lyin or somethin?

John Hofmeister wrote a book "Why We Hate Oil Companies" Dude is an "insider" and he was just talkin about real scenarios. That's the only reason I quoted him.

In other words, If you were upset with Exxon makin record profits 2 yrs ago, think about how much dough they will make when gas is 6-7 dollars a gallon!
 
Last edited:
:lol: You made a funny.
So does the same go for Obama?:D

So is it safe to say that Obama's slow response to the oil spill is due in part to him receiving contributions from BP? Also that he only responded after his own started to turn on him.
no doubt - politician is latin for whore
before this happened obama approved a shitload of drilling for BP and others

Obama's slow response? Says who? Who is going to fix it? Who would fix it faster? Did u miss the team of smartest people in the nation who didn't come up with any fast answer? Is Obama also slow to respond to all the unclean superfund sites? Or is Bush or is Clinton or is Bush1? The POTUS' job isnt to clean up environmental disasters, its to lead. He did everything possible from what I've seen short of asking for international assistance. Could BP have done more, faster? Yeah. Could Obama have done some high powered shit to make them do it faster? Not without the expertise to know they were dragging their feet and not without getting some of his same detractors (you) on some "He's a fascist!" shit.
 
no doubt - politician is latin for whore
before this happened obama approved a shitload of drilling for BP and others

Obama's slow response? Says who? Who is going to fix it? Who would fix it faster? Did u miss the team of smartest people in the nation who didn't come up with any fast answer? Is Obama also slow to respond to all the unclean superfund sites? Or is Bush or is Clinton or is Bush1? The POTUS' job isnt to clean up environmental disasters, its to lead. He did everything possible from what I've seen short of asking for international assistance. Could BP have done more, faster? Yeah. Could Obama have done some high powered shit to make them do it faster? Not without the expertise to know they were dragging their feet and not without getting some of his same detractors (you) on some "He's a fascist!" shit.

AHH the love for Obama!!!:D I take it you are an Obama scholar?
 
AHH the love for Obama!!!:D I take it you are an Obama scholar?
I couldn't give a fuck about Obama. If you want to accuse Obama of something back up your accusation with facts. The same goes for anything you're trying to claim. If you can't back up your assertions don't bother typing.
 


I was tickled by the irony as well.:D


no doubt - politician is latin for whore
before this happened obama approved a shitload of drilling for BP and others

Obama's slow response? Says who? Who is going to fix it? Who would fix it faster? Did u miss the team of smartest people in the nation who didn't come up with any fast answer? Is Obama also slow to respond to all the unclean superfund sites? Or is Bush or is Clinton or is Bush1? The POTUS' job isnt to clean up environmental disasters, its to lead. He did everything possible from what I've seen short of asking for international assistance. Could BP have done more, faster? Yeah. Could Obama have done some high powered shit to make them do it faster? Not without the expertise to know they were dragging their feet and not without getting some of his same detractors (you) on some "He's a fascist!" shit.


Which he did and received so even that can't be used against him.

Big Oil has their hands in all levels of government but they play both sides of the aisle so whoever won in 08 was going to have connections to Big Oil.
I'm less critical of the way Obama's handled BP since this crisis compared to the Republicans and so-called Conservatives (capital "C" because it's really a brand name and not a reflection of reality, like Fox News) who continue to find ways to defend and even apologize to BP for trying to make them responsible for their mess.
 
wow. Are folks saying that the judge is right and the Obama administration is stupid ? I don't get the argument.

Personally I think the administration putting a 6 month ban is over doing it but I am looking at it more from an economic impact than from an overall environmental impact.
 
wow. Are folks saying that the judge is right and the Obama administration is stupid ? I don't get the argument.

Personally I think the administration putting a 6 month ban is over doing it but I am looking at it more from an economic impact than from an overall environmental impact.

That's a mistake since clearly they're both interconnected. This oil spill endangers the seafood that a major economic factor for that region. The idea with the moratorium should be to use the time to check out the gov't's ability to regulate and check all the rigs operating. If this rig was okayed under the old rules, how many others are working with no real emergency plan?
 
What is he telling us Thought? :cool: Is he lyin or somethin?

John Hofmeister wrote a book "Why We Hate Oil Companies" Dude is an "insider" and he was just talkin about real scenarios. That's the only reason I quoted him.

In other words, If you were upset with Exxon makin record profits 2 yrs ago, think about how much dough they will make when gas is 6-7 dollars a gallon!


Did he mention the main reason "Why We Hate Oil Companies" is because ever since the mid 1970s every war, I mean military action has it's nexus in oil? and arguably the reason why the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor was due to the fact that we were blockading their oil from Indonesia. DO YOU KNOW why Iran had their 1980's revolution? You and your fellow conservatives love the status quo. The main reason why we are falling behind in most everything that counts. When gasoline hits 6-7 dollars a gallon, then the publics personal behavior will change and at that point our love affair with oil will seriously be challenged. of course very other country that has be preparing for this and not fight it will have another competitive edge over us. Conservatism is famous for planning for the short term.
 
Did he mention the main reason "Why We Hate Oil Companies" is because ever since the mid 1970s every war, I mean military action has it's nexus in oil? and arguably the reason why the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor was due to the fact that we were blockading their oil from Indonesia. DO YOU KNOW why Iran had their 1980's revolution? You and your fellow conservatives love the status quo. The main reason why we are falling behind in most everything that counts. When gasoline hits 6-7 dollars a gallon, then the publics personal behavior will change and at that point our love affair with oil will seriously be challenged. of course very other country that has be preparing for this and not fight it will have another competitive edge over us. Conservatism is famous for planning for the short term.


It was shown clearly when gas hit $4-$5 a gallon that was the only way we would get off the oil teat. The oil companies saw people riding the bus to work and buying hybrids and drop the prices. Must we always learn the hard way? Always?
 
When gasoline hits 6-7 dollars a gallon, then the publics personal behavior will change and at that point our love affair with oil will seriously be challenged. of course very other country that has be preparing for this and not fight it will have another competitive edge over us. Conservatism is famous for planning for the short term.

dawg, when gas hits 6-7 dollars, we will be broke as fuck!

stop tryin to make this a right vs left issue, it's about control. It's the Elite vs the "small" people! You know I don't support War (Yeah, I am a product of the MLK generation.)

behavior will "change" for the worse. You obviously, haven't "thought" about the consequences. They're demonizing oil but they don't have any viable solutions to take its place. Not to sound like Gunner, but they are pissin on your head & tellin you its rainin'!

Do you recall the Enron "rolling blackouts"? Al Gore, Goldman Sachs & BP gon' make that look like a picnic. It's the same trading scheme but it will be industry-wide, Think brutha.

Another point: the infrastructure isn't in place to bring about free market solutions to oil. When will you finally admit that BP, Exxon, Chevron, & ConocoPhillips have given enormous amounts of grant money to universities to find solutions? (Google it) To top it all off, they been buyin' the patents to these creations for the last 30 years. So while you wanna get rid of Big Oil, they been plannin on this for a long time. Whatever the next 'big' thing, they already own it.
 
dawg, when gas hits 6-7 dollars, we will be broke as fuck!

stop tryin to make this a right vs left issue, it's about control. It's the Elite vs the "small" people! You know I don't support War (Yeah, I am a product of the MLK generation.)

behavior will "change" for the worse. You obviously, haven't "thought" about the consequences. They're demonizing oil but they don't have any viable solutions to take its place. Not to sound like Gunner, but they are pissin on your head & tellin you its rainin'!

Do you recall the Enron "rolling blackouts"? Al Gore, Goldman Sachs & BP gon' make that look like a picnic. It's the same trading scheme but it will be industry-wide, Think brutha.

Another point: the infrastructure isn't in place to bring about free market solutions to oil. When will you finally admit that BP, Exxon, Chevron, & ConocoPhillips have given enormous amounts of grant money to universities to find solutions? (Google it) To top it all off, they been buyin' the patents to these creations for the last 30 years. So while you wanna get rid of Big Oil, they been plannin on this for a long time. Whatever the next 'big' thing, they already own it.

Hey Lamarr
I don't care who owns it. Unlike health insurers and a lot of people on Wall Street, Big Oil/Big Energy at least sells a product. If they can make a buck on clean fuel, good. If I can make two, even better. Just so long as somebody gets this train moving.
 
It was shown clearly when gas hit $4-$5 a gallon that was the only way we would get off the oil teat. The oil companies saw people riding the bus to work and buying hybrids and drop the prices. Must we always learn the hard way? Always?

so after gas hit $4, what happened?

we started losin 6-700,000 jobs a month!

you shut off energy, you shut off jobs. The reason no alternatives have come to market is because it's simply not cost-effective, period. Don't you think us, greedy-azz capitalists would be all over this if we thought we could make some money with it?
 
Hey Lamarr
I don't care who owns it. Unlike health insurers and a lot of people on Wall Street, Big Oil/Big Energy at least sells a product. If they can make a buck on clean fuel, good. If I can make two, even better. Just so long as somebody gets this train moving.

Some people feel "Big Oil" is using the commodity to take advantage of people. If the 'same' people own the technology, (which is a good chance of this happening) Are you assuming their business practices will somehow "change"?
 
I read it. With that said, and if I follow you're response then is it safe to say Obama should be taken to task for taking BP campaign funds. He took them because it was legal. There is no law prohibiting a judge in participating in the free market. This is really reaching. Can you post the law that was broken? I'll be waiting:D

I'm a straight shooter my friend. Far from emotional. I know liberals don't like to be challenged.

Peace

The office of the president is a temporary elected position which by it's nature is political. A judgeship is a lifetime appointment which is supposed to be non political. Many judges recuse themselves when the own stock in one of the plaintiffs. Why didn't this wing nut do it?

source: Bloomberg

Judges Quit BP Gulf Oil-Spill Suits Over Conflicts of Interest

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc and Transocean Ltd. oil-spill lawsuits may be combined before a judge from outside the Gulf Coast states, because judges in the region are withdrawing from cases, citing conflicts of interest.

Six of 12 active judges in the federal judicial district based in New Orleans have removed themselves from spill-damage cases filed by fishermen, property owners and coastal businesses, according to a court official and court records. The judges found conflicts tied to oil investments or personal relationships with lawyers or companies involved.

“Plaintiffs have been informed that most or all of the judges in the district have a conflict and cannot preside” over the litigation, victims’ lawyers said in a request to a Washington judicial panel asking that all the cases be combined before one judge in the New Orleans district.

Federal judges in southern Alabama also have stepped aside from handling spill-damage cases, a court official there said.

Virtually all of more than 150 lawsuits over the spill are proposed class actions representing potentially thousands of claims against BP, owner of the offshore lease where the damaged well is located, and Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank in April.

Also named in the majority of the cases are Halliburton Energy Services, the Halliburton Co. unit that which provided cementing services, and Cameron International Corp., which supplied blowout-prevention equipment.

New York Judge

Plaintiffs’ lawyers with Weitz & Luxenberg PC of New York asked the Washington judicial panel to assign U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin to the multidistrict litigation in southern Louisiana, which they called “the epicenter of this disaster.”

Scheindlin, whose court is in New York, previously handled the consolidation of more than 200 lawsuits over drinking water supplies contaminated by a gasoline additive.

Some of the world’s largest energy companies were defendants in that litigation, including a unit of BP, the company with primary liability for Gulf spill damages.
Plaintiffs and defendants both favor pulling together all federal-court suits over the spill to hold down costs and avoid conflicting rulings by different judges. They differ in where they want the cases consolidated.

The federal Multi-District Litigation program gathers cases over the same product or incident in a single federal court. One judge oversees pretrial evidence gathering, streamlining document exchanges and avoiding duplication.

Plaintiffs’ Choice

Victims’ lawyers asked that the litigation be combined in Louisiana, where the bulk of the oil has washed ashore and efforts to cap the well are concentrated.

“We have five orders of recusal at the moment,” Gene Smith, chief deputy clerk of the New Orleans court, said in a May 28 telephone interview.

The judges are Mary Ann Vial Lemmon, Lance M. Africk, Helen G. Berrigan, Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Jay C. Zainey, Smith said. A sixth, Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, is also recusing himself from some cases, Judge Carl J. Barbier told lawyers last month. A seventh will join the group, he said.

Barbier, who didn’t include himself in the count, owns Transocean Sedco Forex notes and Halliburton Co. debentures, according to disclosure statements obtained from the Web site of Judicial Watch, a self-styled conservative advocacy group based in Washington.

Disclosure Forms

Dick Carelli, a spokesman for the U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts, said “there’s never been any question about the authenticity” of judicial disclosure forms posted on the group’s website.

Barbier didn’t respond to a request for comment, left with one of his law clerks, on whether there is a conflict between his investments and the oil-spill litigation.

In the federal judicial district based in Lafayette, Louisiana, Judge Tucker Melancon stepped aside from some oil- spill cases, according to court records.

Alabama hasn’t seen a “wholesale” withdrawal of judges from spill cases, said Jeff Reinert, chief deputy clerk of the judicial district based in Mobile.

“But several have stepped down from individual cases over relationship issues with the law firms involved,” he said. “Either their friend or son works there.”

BP and other defendants in spill cases asked the multidistrict panel to put the case in Houston, home of each one’s U.S. operational headquarters. The companies asked that the case be assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes.

Hughes has lectured for an oilfield industry professional
group that pays his travel expenses, according to filings obtained from the Judicial Watch website.

Mutual Funds

Hughes also owns six mutual funds that include shares in companies involved in the spill, including one fund whose largest component is Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a minority partner in the damaged well, according to the filings.

Among Hughes’s reported mutual fund holdings are Legg Mason Aggressive Growth Fund, which was almost 10 percent Anadarko at the end of March, and AIM Basic Value Fund, which included shares of Halliburton and Transocean as of the same period.

Hughes, in an e-mail, declined to discuss any aspect of the oil spill case before him or any potential conflict of interest.

“I’m happy to do it,” Hughes told lawyers at hearing in his Houston court last month, referring to the proposed oil- spill litigation. “But I’m certainly not going to love you for it.”

The case is In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-2179, Washington.
 
so after gas hit $4, what happened?

we started losin 6-700,000 jobs a month!

you shut off energy, you shut off jobs. The reason no alternatives have come to market is because it's simply not cost-effective, period. Don't you think us, greedy-azz capitalists would be all over this if we thought we could make some money with it?

In 2006, when the gas was reaching the $4 a gallon range, jobless claims were in the 300k range and a recession was already in full bloom. While it definitely hurt on many levels, I'm going to need you to make the connection to massive job loss.
No one is talking about shutting off energy, just investing and building new, more efficient forms.
No, "greedy ass capitalists" in this country have a history of passing over long term stability for a bigger, short term payoff.


Some people feel "Big Oil" is using the commodity to take advantage of people. If the 'same' people own the technology, (which is a good chance of this happening) Are you assuming their business practices will somehow "change"?


No, I wouldn't trust them at all. But that's where stringent oversight by the federal government comes in. Not about trusting but verification.
 
In 2006, when the gas was reaching the $4 a gallon range, jobless claims were in the 300k range and a recession was already in full bloom. While it definitely hurt on many levels, I'm going to need you to make the connection to massive job loss.

With this chart, (from the St. Louis Fed) you can see how we had the run-up in gas prices which kicked-off the recession. Gas prices peaked around July 2008 at $147 per barrel. After that, deflationary forces kicked in until the govt began their stimulus program. After every inflationary boom, there is a deflationary bust. When those energy prices rise, from govt actions (which it seems you & Thought don't have a problem with), a lot of people will just be priced-out of the personal mobility marketplace. And be unemployed!

fredgraph.png


No, I wouldn't trust them at all. But that's where stringent oversight by the federal government comes in. Not about trusting but verification.

:smh: Big Oil is working with the govt bruh!
 
With this chart, (from the St. Louis Fed) you can see how we had the run-up in gas prices which kicked-off the recession. Gas prices peaked around July 2008 at $147 per barrel. After that, deflationary forces kicked in until the govt began their stimulus program. After every inflationary boom, there is a deflationary bust. When those energy prices rise, from govt actions (which it seems you & Thought don't have a problem with), a lot of people will just be priced-out of the personal mobility marketplace. And be unemployed!

fredgraph.png




:smh: Big Oil is working with the govt bruh!


Was it the rise in fuel or the housing market downturn that started the recession of 08? This would be the first I'm hearing it was caused by the rise in fuel prices. That's always referred to an a contributant and not a cause.
And I still don't see an alternative rememdy being offered other than status quo, which is unsustainable and more expensive in more ways than we can afford.
And where does it say that rising oil prices caused massive job loss? And if that's true, wouldn't it behoove us to use as little oil as possible as soon as possible?


I don't have a problem with Big Oil working with the government until it becomes a conflict of interest and the agencies meant to oversee them become arms of industry. Again, what's the alternative? ExxonMobil, Conaco-Phillips and Shell went right up on Capital Hill to throw dirt on their competitor and we found out that their emergency plans were the exact same. It's clear that the private sector will not police itself.
 
The office of the president is a temporary elected position which by it's nature is political. A judgeship is a lifetime appointment which is supposed to be non political. Many judges recuse themselves when the own stock in one of the plaintiffs. Why didn't this wing nut do it?

source: Bloomberg

Judges Quit BP Gulf Oil-Spill Suits Over Conflicts of Interest

June 2 (Bloomberg) -- BP Plc and Transocean Ltd. oil-spill lawsuits may be combined before a judge from outside the Gulf Coast states, because judges in the region are withdrawing from cases, citing conflicts of interest.

Six of 12 active judges in the federal judicial district based in New Orleans have removed themselves from spill-damage cases filed by fishermen, property owners and coastal businesses, according to a court official and court records. The judges found conflicts tied to oil investments or personal relationships with lawyers or companies involved.

“Plaintiffs have been informed that most or all of the judges in the district have a conflict and cannot preside” over the litigation, victims’ lawyers said in a request to a Washington judicial panel asking that all the cases be combined before one judge in the New Orleans district.

Federal judges in southern Alabama also have stepped aside from handling spill-damage cases, a court official there said.

Virtually all of more than 150 lawsuits over the spill are proposed class actions representing potentially thousands of claims against BP, owner of the offshore lease where the damaged well is located, and Transocean, which owned the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded and sank in April.

Also named in the majority of the cases are Halliburton Energy Services, the Halliburton Co. unit that which provided cementing services, and Cameron International Corp., which supplied blowout-prevention equipment.

New York Judge

Plaintiffs’ lawyers with Weitz & Luxenberg PC of New York asked the Washington judicial panel to assign U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin to the multidistrict litigation in southern Louisiana, which they called “the epicenter of this disaster.”

Scheindlin, whose court is in New York, previously handled the consolidation of more than 200 lawsuits over drinking water supplies contaminated by a gasoline additive.

Some of the world’s largest energy companies were defendants in that litigation, including a unit of BP, the company with primary liability for Gulf spill damages.
Plaintiffs and defendants both favor pulling together all federal-court suits over the spill to hold down costs and avoid conflicting rulings by different judges. They differ in where they want the cases consolidated.

The federal Multi-District Litigation program gathers cases over the same product or incident in a single federal court. One judge oversees pretrial evidence gathering, streamlining document exchanges and avoiding duplication.

Plaintiffs’ Choice

Victims’ lawyers asked that the litigation be combined in Louisiana, where the bulk of the oil has washed ashore and efforts to cap the well are concentrated.

“We have five orders of recusal at the moment,” Gene Smith, chief deputy clerk of the New Orleans court, said in a May 28 telephone interview.

The judges are Mary Ann Vial Lemmon, Lance M. Africk, Helen G. Berrigan, Ivan L.R. Lemelle and Jay C. Zainey, Smith said. A sixth, Judge Kurt D. Engelhardt, is also recusing himself from some cases, Judge Carl J. Barbier told lawyers last month. A seventh will join the group, he said.

Barbier, who didn’t include himself in the count, owns Transocean Sedco Forex notes and Halliburton Co. debentures, according to disclosure statements obtained from the Web site of Judicial Watch, a self-styled conservative advocacy group based in Washington.

Disclosure Forms

Dick Carelli, a spokesman for the U.S. Administrative Office of the Courts, said “there’s never been any question about the authenticity” of judicial disclosure forms posted on the group’s website.

Barbier didn’t respond to a request for comment, left with one of his law clerks, on whether there is a conflict between his investments and the oil-spill litigation.

In the federal judicial district based in Lafayette, Louisiana, Judge Tucker Melancon stepped aside from some oil- spill cases, according to court records.

Alabama hasn’t seen a “wholesale” withdrawal of judges from spill cases, said Jeff Reinert, chief deputy clerk of the judicial district based in Mobile.

“But several have stepped down from individual cases over relationship issues with the law firms involved,” he said. “Either their friend or son works there.”

BP and other defendants in spill cases asked the multidistrict panel to put the case in Houston, home of each one’s U.S. operational headquarters. The companies asked that the case be assigned to Judge Lynn Hughes.

Hughes has lectured for an oilfield industry professional
group that pays his travel expenses, according to filings obtained from the Judicial Watch website.

Mutual Funds

Hughes also owns six mutual funds that include shares in companies involved in the spill, including one fund whose largest component is Anadarko Petroleum Corp., a minority partner in the damaged well, according to the filings.

Among Hughes’s reported mutual fund holdings are Legg Mason Aggressive Growth Fund, which was almost 10 percent Anadarko at the end of March, and AIM Basic Value Fund, which included shares of Halliburton and Transocean as of the same period.

Hughes, in an e-mail, declined to discuss any aspect of the oil spill case before him or any potential conflict of interest.

“I’m happy to do it,” Hughes told lawyers at hearing in his Houston court last month, referring to the proposed oil- spill litigation. “But I’m certainly not going to love you for it.”

The case is In Re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL-2179, Washington.
Good info

Hey Que - do you know the judge in question? How likely is it he will be punished for not withdrawing due to conflict of interest? Overturned? Can a judge be overturned just due to coi even if when weighing the decision an appellate court agrees with him or her?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Good info

Hey Que - do you know the judge in question? How likely is it he will be punished for not withdrawing due to conflict of interest? Overturned? Can a judge be overturned just due to coi even if when weighing the decision an appellate court agrees with him or her?

Taking my kids out to dinner; will comment later this eve.

QueEx
 
so after gas hit $4, what happened?

we started losin 6-700,000 jobs a month!

Externalities Upgrade Dave, externalities. How many jobs are lost due to the gulf oil spill? How many jobs have been lost in the pursuit of oil on lands that we have to spend trillions of dollars on military intervention? How many jobs have been lost transferring our money to the oil nations. And many of the jobs lost due to the gulf spill are permanent!

BTW, we were losing 750,00 a month last year and gas was $3/gallon.

Do you recall the Enron "rolling blackouts"? Al Gore, Goldman Sachs & BP gon' make that look like a picnic. It's the same trading scheme but it will be industry-wide, Think brutha.

Your examples are ridiculous! The very existence of Enron was a pure scam. There was never a shortage of power. The blackouts were manipulated by traders to squeeze money out of the citizens of California. You need to see The Smartest Guys in the Room.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zMakN-EMLg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0zMakN-EMLg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>​


Corporatism!:smh:
 
Last edited:
Was it the rise in fuel or the housing market downturn that started the recession of 08? That's always referred to an a contributant and not a cause.

Energy is a necessary ingredient for production. You'd have to say it was a significant contributor to the crash. 3 necessities in life 1) shelter 2) food 3) energy. Speculators artificially bid these items up & shorted the hell out of them on the way down, while fleecing the "small" people all along. That chart from the Fed is consistent with how Oil affects the nation.

And I still don't see an alternative rememdy being offered other than status quo, which is unsustainable and more expensive in more ways than we can afford.

The remedy is to allow for the 'average joe' to bring a product to market, if it's cost-effective & people like it, let him or her compete. It simply violates the concept of freedom by forcing people to use a less viable alternative.

From what I see, the people of the Gulf survive on seafood & the oil industry. That is their unique contribution to the country. Unfortunately, fisherman are displaced, and the only solution is to put a moratorium on oil. This action affects the 'small' people of the community more than it does BP. BP could take those rigs to South America and wouldn't miss a beat.

ExxonMobil, Conaco-Phillips and Shell went right up on Capital Hill to throw dirt on their competitor and we found out that their emergency plans were the exact same. It's clear that the private sector will not police itself.

And you're exactly right, thats why the govt must get rid of the liability cap to let these companies know they have RISK. Aint that just like the govt, to remove all the risk associated with a companies negligent behavior. A $75 million dollar cap is a drop in the bucket, so they will continue their reckless behavior because the legal limit is a 'nuisance'.

Sorry for being wordy but bottom line, $7 gas aint gon' hurt BP. It will only hurt the 'small' people (Dems & Repubs)
 
And you're exactly right, thats why the govt must get rid of the liability cap to let these companies know they have RISK. Aint that just like the govt, to remove all the risk associated with a companies negligent behavior. A $75 million dollar cap is a drop in the bucket, so they will continue their reckless behavior because the legal limit is a 'nuisance'.

I like that idea but even getting it raised to $10 billion has proven difficult so an outright elimination would take a serious, entire world shattering event.

If they could take the rigs to South America, they would already be there. They aren't here out of some loyalty. None of the oil companies want to chance being near another Chavez or Morales.



I take you one better, end all tax breaks and subsidies for oil companies.


Okay or make them specific on the condition of developing alternative energy sources. Whatever money they spend do that, they get a tax credit for.
 
Okay or make them specific on the condition of developing alternative energy sources. Whatever money they spend do that, they get a tax credit for.


Why should a company that makes $20 billions profit in one year have to use tax payer moneys for anything. They should pay it back.
 
Back
Top