Skip to main content

I guess most people who visit this highly progressive internet site have heard of Federal District Court Judge Martin Feldman by now. In any case, for those who may not have heard of him, he is the District Court Judge who has stricken down and enjoined - for the second time now - the Obama Administration's temporary moratorium order on deep sea drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Judge Feldman has also been known to be overly friendly to all oil exploration interests throughout America, and more particularly in the Gulf states. From newspaper and internet site sources, we know that he is also a close hunting buddy of Supreme Court Justice Antonio G. Scalia. (Gee, I wonder if he is also a hunting buddy of former Vice President, Dick Cheney. At the same time, I also wonder if the judge has ever been accidentally shot during a hunting junket.) Additionally, the elderly Republican judge is likely taking telephone advice and cues from Justice Scalia concerning specific rulings in the moratorium case presently before him.

Importantly, too, District Court Judge Feldman is also an avid stock investor, and particularly of oil and gas exploration stocks. In fact, on the specific day he heard the moratorium case, he actually held stock in Exon. However, he sold it on the very morning in which he issued his  first unfavorable ruling. However, that was likely too late by then.

Furthermore, amongst other widely held oil and gas stock holdings, the judge continues to own XE Corporation interests. By the way, the XE Corporation was formerly known as the Blackwater Corporation. The important point here is that the XE Corporation currently owns a large block of stock of BP and did so throughout the moratorium hearings.  

Where did I get this explicit and detailed financial information concerning Judge Feldman? Well, I garnered it while watching the Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC tonight (June 25, 2010). Indeed, it was quite enlightening. I believe she also has hard copy evidence of those ongoing financial interests of the judge.

You know, that Rachel Maddow is fast becoming one of the best investigative news persons we have left in America. (You go girl!) That is, if there are any left besides her. In any case, check out that particular program for yourself. (You won't be sorry.)

Not surprisingly, there exists specific federal ethics and conflict of interest law that pertain to the moratorium case and to Judge Feldman. Specifically, it is the U.S. Code of Ethics and Judicial Conduct. It can be found at:

It provides in pertinent part as follows:

"Ch 2: Code of Conduct for United States Judges

Canon 1: A Judge Should Uphold the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

Canon 2: A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All Activities

Canon 3: A Judge Should Perform the Duties of the Office Fairly, Impartially and Diligently

Canon 4: A Judge May Engage in Extrajudicial Activities That Are Consistent with the Obligations of Judicial Office

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity"
(Emphasis added.)

On page two, it is also mandates that:

"B. Outside Influence. A judge should not allow family, social, political, financial, or other relationships to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A judge should neither lend the prestige of the judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others nor convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge should not testify voluntarily as a character witness." (Emphasis Added.)

Canon 2A is even more specific concerning judicial improprieties:  

"An appearance of impropriety occurs when reasonable minds, with knowledge of all the relevant circumstances disclosed by a reasonable inquiry, would conclude that the judge’s honesty, integrity, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge is impaired. Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. (Emphasis added.)

The most important part of what is being implicitly and explicitly said in these canons is that any action or ruling that even gives the appearance of an impropriety is prohibited, requiring the judge to recuse himself from hearing the case, ab initio (from the very beginning).  

Canon 2B is also highly relevant. It provides as follows:

"A judge should avoid lending the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the judge or others." (Emphasis added.)

Unquestionably, based upon the judge's stock holdings in XE alone, he certainly has violated the above provisions by at least giving to the public "the appearance of an impropriety."  

Fortunately, there is also an enforcement mechanism relative to any claimed judicial ethics violations. It can be found on page two of the Ethics and Judicial Conduct Code. It specifically provides:

"The Judicial Conference has authorized its Committee on Codes of Conduct to render advisory opinions about this Code only when requested by a judge to whom this Code applies. Requests for opinions and other questions concerning this Code and its applicability should be addressed to the Chair of the Committee on Codes of Conduct by email or as follows: Chair, Committee on Codes of Conduct at:

c/o General Counsel
Administrative Office of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20544

The reader should also be aware that there was a more direct and quicker way in which the judge could have been forced to recuse himself from hearing the moratorium case. The lawyer representing the United States (had he had the sufficient "Audacity of Hope" and guts) should have filed a pre-hearing motion with Judge Feldman for him to recuse himself, backed up by the evidence that Rachel Maddow has provided us through her own personal initiative. Even now, at whatever level this case presently happens to be at, the motion for the judge to recuse himself could still be made. In fact, it can be made at any time.  

I'll tell you what I will soon be doing: I'll be trying to get hard copies of the financial information concerning Judge Martin Feldman, so that I can send it directly to the General Counsel of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts at the address above.

You know, any one or more of you can do the same - make a written, formal complaint to that particular office. Or you can simply make a telephone call to that office to protest verbally. The more who do so, the better, I'd say. In any case, good luck to you.      

Originally posted to Major Tom on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 10:31 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  From what I've heard... (6+ / 0-)

    most of the judges down there are like that. (Confirmation needed on that).

    In any case, I think Maddow did a segment today exposing at least some of Feldman's interests. Or maybe it was Olbermann. Or maybe both. Fuck if I remember.

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:05:24 PM PDT

  •  Judge hides behind his robes and cashes in (10+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:06:19 PM PDT

  •  Well, it's the lawyers' job (4+ / 0-)

    to know what's up with the judge, and obviously that information about his holdings is a matter of public record, probably through some disclosure requirements.  Yet the administration willingly litigated this case before him, without moving for him to recuse himself?  Do we have lawyers in the highest jobs of government that don't even do basic research on things like who the judge is before they go to trial?  Great lawyers they'd be.  No, I'm thinking they knew those facts perfectly well when they tried the case in front of Feldman.  It would be a routine part of trial preparation.  But they didn't move for recusal.  That only leaves one question:  did the administration get exactly the judgment they wanted?

    We who have been nothing shall be all. This is the final struggle. ~E. Pottier

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:15:18 PM PDT

    •  or did the administration (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      debedb, fou, camlbacker, BitchesAtWork

      get a judge they knew would be good on appeal?

      We need to teach people that the environment has a direct bearing on our own benefit. Dalai Lama

      by maggiejean on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:18:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Or maybe owning stock in a company (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        debedb, fou, coffeetalk

        that isn't party to the case isn't clear grounds for recusal.

        •  Except that he does. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dancewater, luckylizard

          His holdings include Transocean, which leased the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig to BP. Transocean stock rose 13% when Judge Feldman issued his ruling.

          A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

          by edg on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:20:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Transocean is not a party to the case (0+ / 0-)

            Judge Feldman does not, and did not, own stock to a party in the case.

            •  Exxon has a rig involved and he owned Exxon. n/t (0+ / 0-)

              The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

              by pelagicray on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 07:27:08 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  That's generally not the standard for recusal (0+ / 0-)

                See my post below.  Judges here with interest in the oil and gas industry generally do not recuse themselves unless the company is a party to the case -- Exxon was not a party.  More importantly, if you are angry at anyone, it should be the government's lawyers -- they had an obligation, if they thought there was some issue, to raise this BEFORE he issued a ruling.  Their failure to do so was, in effect, the government's consent for him to hear this case.  

      •  A Fixed Case of Judicial Cherry Picking (0+ / 0-)

        I do appreciate your sincere doubts about the Obama Administration's actions and motives, as well as his out-of-the-loop, Chicago advisors group and their recommended half-hearted legislative and executive measures thus far. Right now, they seem in hibernation, or at least in communicato, don't they? Perhaps, it's because of their "don't blame me, not my fault, re-election stance from the very beginning." Ah, too little and too late. You know, all that doesn't end well is not well...not ever. You know, "We had it all, like Bogey and Bacall" the song goes.

        Boy, that Obama... he can certainly call out a great dance, but when it comes to actual dancing and leading, he just refuses to do so.

        You know, I just couldn't leave it alone and not vent; so therefore, my apologies to all.

    •  The inference a reasonable person would (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Major Tom, Justanothernyer

      draw isn't that there's a deep CT involving the government intentionally throwing the case, but that there wasn't a strong enough case for recusal such that it would be wise to piss off a district court judge.

  •  Despicable is right. (5+ / 0-)

    He should have recused himself at the start. Rachel told us that LA has a list of judges that have oil sympathies, so they can not be given cases related to oil. Looks like nobody checked it this time.

    BTW, he can recuse himself at any point. If we keep the pressure up, maybe we can convince him to do so.

    Beyond petroleum my ass! ~ Rachel Maddow

    by Purple Priestess on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:32:54 PM PDT

  •  I'm not sure I buy an accusation... (3+ / 0-)

    ...of the appearance of impropriety based upon owning stock in a company that owns stock in another company.

    If he personally owned 100,000 shares of stock in BP I could see it but I doubt the judge would know of the connection between the two companies.

    Also since XE's main form of business is not holding BP stock, then the filter through benefits to the judge would be minimal.

    •  I've wondered about that myself. (0+ / 0-)

      Many of us have 401k plans and I don't really know what specific holdings my plan has. I guess I should research that, but each fund has different shares in different companies. I need to find out if I own BP.

      "Don't knock's just like chess but without the dice" - john07801

      by voracious on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:39:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The Mere Appearance of Impropriety (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peraspera, Dakit

      It wasn't just the BP and Exon shares that the judge happened to own at the time. There were (and are) additional oil and gas stocks owned by the judge. I believe there are more than twenty-five of them in all. Furthermore, "the mere appearance of impropriety" is indeed an ethics violation in itself and by itself. Any lawyer who has ever taken a Bar Ethics Examination should tell you that. Moreover, the rule is even stricter for sitting judges.    

      •  Sounds like a vague test to me. (0+ / 0-)

        It'd be interesting to see case law (ethics opinions, commentary), because my hunch is that it's not as clear as it appears at first.

        There was another story a few weeks ago about a judge that peeps said should've recused himself, and when one dug into the caselaw the claim turned out to be a giant fail.  So ya never know.

        •  Financial Interest Recusal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Right now, there are dozens and dozens of sitting judges who have already recused themselves from hearing gulf oil spill cases, based upon their holding lesser valued, oil stock interests than Judge Feldman. In fact, there have been so many recusals so far that there will be a marked shortage of judges to hear the multitude of related cases over the next years and decades. (Always remember: Justice delayed is justice denied.) Even lawyers are strictly required to avoid "the appearance of a conflict of interest" and "the mere appearance of an impropriety." And again, the mandate is even stricter for judges on the bench, federal or otherwise.  

          •  It sounds to me like he should have recused (0+ / 0-)

            himself, but it's not clear he was compelled to, although I could totally be wrong* and I'm digging through ethics junk now.

            * Which is the point: absent more background, I don't see how anyone could claim he had to recuse himself.

            •  Here's one court: (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Major Tom, Rashaverak

              Petitioners also argue that recusal is required because Judge Sanders holds a large investment in a Texas bank that may be affected by rulings in this case. Petitioners assert that any rulings adverse to the Banks will have a dramatic impact on the entire banking industry and thus on Judge Sanders' investment as well....We are unwilling to adopt a rule requiring recusal in every case in which a judge owns stock of a company in the same industry as one of the parties to the case, and Petitioners, by showing only an indirect and speculative interest, have failed to sufficiently distinguish this case from that situation. A remote, contingent, and speculative interest is not a financial interest within the meaning of the recusal statute,  nor does it create a situation in which a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

              What that tells us is that the proper analysis must look at the particulars for each company in which the judge held shares and see whether they would be harmed or helped (do they subcontract for any parties subject to the moratorium?  etc)  

              •  Your Texas Case (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                burrow owl

                Touche! Good citation for sure. All I can say is that what goes on in Texas might definitely be a horse of a different color. Just consider the fact that Texas still jails offenders for mere marijuana possession.  

                Yet, again, dozens and dozens of judges (including federal judges)in courts of the Gulf Coast have already recused themselves for lesser compelling reasons. Perhaps they were also wrong. Also, within federal jurisdiction, the Ethic's Canons are quite clear and explicit.

    •  The judge owned Transocean stock. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burrow owl, peraspera, Major Tom, AreDeutz

      Transocean owns the Deepwater Horizon and leases it to BP.

      A tax cut for the wealthy is the opiate of the rightwing masses.

      by edg on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:27:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Transocean Stock as well. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burrow owl, AreDeutz

        You're exactly right. Judge Feldman did own, and continues to own, Transocean stock as well. Isn't that a direct financial interest and conflict of interest connection; since under applicable joint tortfeaser law, both Halliburton and Transocean, as coventurers in the subject well, would likely be jointly and severally liable for all damages resulting from the catastrophic spill; and particularly when that coventure involved inherently dangerous activities (don't forget: many people died) as well as non-delegatable duties?  

        By the way, a week or so after the well explosion, Halliburton and Transocean sent an army of lawyers to federal court to enforce a 75 million dollar limitation of damages (and said statutory limit still exists at this very moment by virtue of Republican filibusters and committee holds).  

        You know, sometimes a lawyer as a master crafter of words, can help determine the outcome of a particular case by that lawyer's very pleadings. For example, in this instant case, I would have responded to the complaint of the ferry and barge owner complainants by naming every single one of Judge Feldman's oil and gas stock, financial connections in my answer.  

        Good night all...or I should say good morning now?

      •  From the Post article. He sold the stock (0+ / 0-)

        a couple of years ago.  

        According to his 2008 financial disclosure form, Feldman held shares in, among other companies, deepwater rig owner Transocean, shallow-water drillers Hercules and Rowan, and international rig and tool provider Parker Drilling. Each of those investments was valued at $15,000 or less.

        Feldman's latest disclosure form indicates that he had sold his holdings in those four companies by the end of 2008.

        Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and OK for you.

        by thestructureguy on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:34:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I expect..nothing less from a republican (7+ / 0-)

    Money trumps all - asshole should be removed

    Republican - a nice way of saying asshole

    by artr2 on Fri Jun 25, 2010 at 11:51:43 PM PDT

  •  Marty Feldman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, We Want Change, AreDeutz

    I particularly like him as Igor in Young Frankenstein

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 01:17:24 AM PDT

  •  Mentioned on Kos b4 (0+ / 0-)

    that a great many of the judges presiding in jurisdictions where lawsuits concerning the current Gulf Oilpocalypse have intense financial interests in oil/gas industry and would therefore have pretty much the same conflict of interest as mentioned here.

  •  GOP's behavior reflecting badly for BP (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The GOP's currupt behavior, disease to please BP has backfired. BP's deceptive image has sank lower than their busted oil rig thanks to the GOP. How long will it be before BP realizes they would be better off abandoning the GOP?

  •  It is out beyond RM. (0+ / 0-)

    Judge in drilling case held stock in oil company affected by moratorium in today's Washington Post for one.

    This one smells very strongly. I'd hope ethics charges are brought against the judge. There is certainly more than the "appearance of conflict." I know from experience I'd have had to remove myself from any government contract decisions and evaluations with such holdings that involved companies with which I had that much interest.

    The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

    by pelagicray on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 07:32:54 AM PDT

    •  It is too late for that (0+ / 0-)

      The people who should be the focus of your complaints are the government lawyers.  Judge Feldman's stock holdings were public.  He does not have any interest in a party to the case, so recusal is not mandatory, but discretionary.  If the government's lawyers had any question about whether he could fairly hear the case, they had an obligation to raise that BEFORE he issued a ruling.  Their failure to raise this amounted to consent on the part of the federal government for him to hear this case.  Once they made that decision, they can't wait to see how he rules, and, if they don't like his ruling, THEN raise this "appearance of impropriety" issue.  It is too late -- the federal government made the decision that he could be fair before the ruling when the federal government's lawyers made the decision not to seek his recusal.  

      •  Read? He owned Exxon stock. Exxon had a rig (0+ / 0-)

        involved in the case, directly impacted by the moratorium he was ruling upon, if not a direct litigant. Where the hell do you get:

        He does not have any interest in a party to the case, so recusal is not mandatory, but discretionary.

        From the WP cite with my emphasis:

        "Because he remembered that Exxon, who was not a party litigant in the moratorium case, nevertheless had one of the 33 rigs in the Gulf, the judge instructed his broker to sell Exxon and XTO [Energy Inc.] as soon as the market opened the next morning,"

        A bit further down:

        The judicial canons require that judges be aware of their investments. Judicial ethicists said that, had he been aware of his holdings, Feldman should have disclosed the ownership or recused himself at the case's outset if he thought it posed a conflict or raised questions about his impartiality. The court docket indicates that Feldman signed several orders before the sale.

        It is not up to the government lawyers to do a full background check on Judges, supposedly adults and responsible, before each case. Judicial canons instead require the Judge to examine himself.

        The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

        by pelagicray on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 08:26:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Here's where I get it (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          1.  Feldman's interest in Exxon stock was on his 2009 disclosure form.  That document is publicly available, so the government lawyers had access to it when the case was assigned to Feldman.  A lawyer in a case cannot wait until after a ruling that he doesn't like to THEN raise the issue that the judge should have recused himself.  Any lawyer who practices in courtrooms regularly knows that.  If the interest in Exxon was hidden, that would be different.  But if you have access to the information, you have to raise it BEFORE any ruling, or forever hold your piece.  Otherwise, in disputable situations (what if his brother owned stock in one of the parties? his brother-in-law? his cousin? his best friend?) lawyers would wait to see how a judge rules, and then use the disputable conflict situation as a back door way to get a ruling overturned.  You just can't do that.  You have to make a decision as to whether you are ok with a judge deciding your case BEFORE you get a ruling, not after.  That's a basic, basic premise of practicing law.
          1.  The "appearance of impropriety" is not a definite, measurable standard. It's a judgment call -- that's why I said it's discretionary, because there has to be some discretion involved as to whether this particular situation meets the standard.  It's not like having a direct interest in a party.  Judges here in New Orleans with oil and gas interests rule on cases affecting the oil and gas industry all the time. And those judges rule against oil companies a lot.  If the conflict is not direct, but just perhaps the "appearance of impropriety," that's a judgment call.  What if the judge's brother owned an interest in Exxon?  What if the judge owned an interest in an oil company that was in shallow GOM drilling but considering deepwater drilling?  What if the Judge's family had a family business that supplied catering to GOM rigs?  What if the Judge had a family member who worked offshore?  All of those are potential "appearance of impropriety" situations, but it's generally a judgement call left up to the sound discretion of the judge.  I can tell you from over 20 years of experience in Louisiana courtrooms that having an interest in the oil and gas industry (either in an oil company, a service company, owning land that generates mineral interests, or a family business that deals with the oil industry) seldom results in recusal UNLESS there is a more direct situation, like an interest in a party to a case.  If that were not the case, then almost no cases involving the oil and gas industry could ever be heard in Louisiana.  
          •  The "standards" you are claiming on this then are (0+ / 0-)

            not as rigorous as those concerning those dealing with government contracting in my day. One did not have to be "caught out" by the contracting office. "Forgetting" you had a financial interest in any party affected by your decisions was an option that would have had serious personal consequences.

            This judge has found himself "making the Washington Post" bringing into question his and the system's integrity. I well remember our lawyers during biannual ethics briefs using that is exactly what must not happen. If your standards generally apply it is long past time we establish new ones with teeth--jail time teeth.

            The only foes that threaten America are the enemies at home, and those are ignorance, superstition, and incompetence. [Elbert Hubbard]

            by pelagicray on Sat Jun 26, 2010 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You have overstated the case. Here's the deal (0+ / 0-)

    I've practiced law in New Orleans for over 20 years.  The vast, vast majority of judges -- both state and federal -- have some interest in the oil and gas industry.  Either (1) they own stock in an oil company; (2) they own stock in a service company; (3) they have relatives who work in the industry or in the service industry; (4) they own land that generates oil and gas royalties; or (5) they have family that owns land that generates oil and gas royalties.  Or a combination of all of the above.  That simply reflects that the oil and gas industry is such a large part of what happens in Louisiana.  It's like trying to find someone in Washington D.C. who doesn't have a connection to the federal government, or who doesn't have a relative with a connection to the federal government.

    The kinds of things I mentioned do not generally cause a judge to recuse himself or herself UNLESS the interest is directly affected -- like the company in which the judge own stock is a PARTY to the case. (That is not the case here.)  If it is not direct, judges generally don't recuse themselves.  I'll give you two examples.  First, Feldman and other federal judges in the E.D. La. often hear Jones Act cases involving offshore workers.  The precedent they set in those cases will often affect all oil companies doing business in the GOM.  However, if a Judge owns stock in Chevron, that does not generally prevent him/her from hearing a Jones Act lawsuit brought against Exxon, and they often (including Feldman) rule against the oil companies.  As another example, oil companies are often sued by landowners who collect royalties.  Those rulings, also, are precedent which affect all oil and gas companies and landowners.  Yet a judge who owns mineral land, or whose family does, generally does not recuse himself from these cases unless his family's land is part of the case.

    Finally, it is too late for this issue to be raised. This is not a direct conflict that requires recusal because he does not own stock in a party to the case.  As some have noted, the "appearance" of impropriety is a very vague and subjective standard, often left up to the judge. However, if the parties think that a judge's stock holdings are going to affect his ruling, the parties have an obligation to raise that BEFORE the case proceeds far enough along to make a ruling.  The parties are not allowed to wait and see what the ruling is and, if they don't like the ruling, THEN to raise the "appearnace of impropriety" issue.  Any lawyer who did that would be drummed out of court, maybe sanctioned.  In other words, the stock holdings were public PRIOR to the ruling.  If the government's lawyers had any doubt whatsoever that Judge Feldman could  be fair, they had an OBLIGATION to raise it before he made any rulings.  The fact that they didn't is not Judge Feldman's problem.  He has heard lots of oil and gas cases in the past -- he has a lot of experience in martime GOM cases affecting the oil and gas industry and is not known for being particularly easy on the industry -- and simply followed his standard method of operating: not to recuse himself unless he had an interest in a party to the case.  The fact that the government, as well, made a CONSCIOUS DECSION not to seek his recusal is not grounds to trash the Judge. The time for raising that has come and gone.  If I, as a lawyer, made a conscious decision not to seek recusal, waited until a ruling came down, and (when I didn't like the ruling) trashed the judge for not recusing himself, I'd be sanctioned.  

    Whether I agree with his decision or not (and if you read the opinion, you will see that a lot of the reason for his ruling was the failure of the government's lawyers to present him with a legally-sufficient justification for concluding that those other rigs were dangerous) there is no basis to trash him for the failure to recuse himself.

  •  "judge" Martin Feldman Felt NO Need to Recuse (0+ / 0-)

    because he is the pillar of the community and more ethical, fair, and impartial than GOD himself.

    If the government shyster had requested Feldman's recusal, then it would have pissed off the "judge".  
    The "judge" would deny the recusal request and promptly rule against the government in every case he heard.

    Did the malpracticing government shyster who was incompetent by failing to request Feldman's recusal a Bush/Cheney hack who graduated from a half-assed "Christian" law school like Liberty or CBN's Regent U?!

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site