U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman is the judge who rejected the first attempt by the Obama administration to impose a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP (NYSE:BP) oil spill, and he again chastised the administration by throwing out the new regulations accompanying the moratorium, which weren't addressed in the original moratorium case.
Feldman based his ruling on the administration not giving oil and gas companies notice and a chance to make comments on the 10 new rules.
“NTL-05 imposes additional duties on operators and lessees. Notice and comment were required by law. The government did not comply and the NTL-05 is of no lawful force or effect,” said Feldman.
While the second moratorium was recently lifted, the Interior Department rules known as NTL-05 remained in force, that is until the judge threw them out.
On November 3 a lawsuit which challenged the moratorium will be considered for whether or not it will be allowed to go forward. The government has asked for it to be dismissed.
Showing posts with label Judge Feldman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Feldman. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Hornbeck (NYSE:HOS) Up as Judge Rules Lawsuit Against Moratorium Can Go Forward
US District Court Judge Martin Fedlman rejected the attempt by the Obama administration to have a lawsuit dropped from Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc. (NYSE:HOS) and others, concerning the misguided oil moratorium.
The disingenuous second moratorium by the Obama administration was an attempt to circumvent after Judge Feldman blocked the implementation of the drilling ban.
Lawyers from the Justice Department attempted to persuade the judge that the lawsuit wasn't relevant any longer because of the second moratorium imposed by the Interior Department.
Feldman slapped that ridiculous notion down by saying the second moratorium was "substantially the same as the first." It was the exact same thing except being called the second moratorium.
Concerning the first moratorium, Feldman rightly noted the Obama administration hadn't taken into consideration the economic impact the moratorium would have on the Gulf Coast states.
The disingenuous second moratorium by the Obama administration was an attempt to circumvent after Judge Feldman blocked the implementation of the drilling ban.
Lawyers from the Justice Department attempted to persuade the judge that the lawsuit wasn't relevant any longer because of the second moratorium imposed by the Interior Department.
Feldman slapped that ridiculous notion down by saying the second moratorium was "substantially the same as the first." It was the exact same thing except being called the second moratorium.
Concerning the first moratorium, Feldman rightly noted the Obama administration hadn't taken into consideration the economic impact the moratorium would have on the Gulf Coast states.
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Judge Feldman Owned Exxon (NYSE:XOM) Stock: Groups Want Him Off The Moratorium Case
Environmental groups are asking U.S. District Judge Feldman to recuse himself citing financial conflicts, due to evidence showing he owned stock in Exxon Mobil (NYSE:XOM). Feldman has received much criticizing for his ruling putting a block on the six month moratorium issued by the president.
In the U.S. District Court filing against Feldman, the groups state that his investments in oil and gas companies prove his ruling to show prejudice. According to the Judges 2009 financial holdings, he held stock in Exxon Mobil during the days leading up to his ruling. After the public release of his financial records, Feldman said that he learned about his investments in Exxon Mobil on June 21st, the day prior to his ruling. He sold the stock the following morning.
Federal Judges, under the Federal law are not allowed to rule in cases where there could be a financial interest in the parties or the outcome. If there is an appearance of conflict they are prohibited from ruling on or being involved in those cases.
Some legal experts are saying that Feldman's decision to sell his stocks before making his ruling absolves him of any legal wrongdoing. "I doubt a recusal motion would survive under those circumstances," said Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford Law School and director of the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession.
In the U.S. District Court filing against Feldman, the groups state that his investments in oil and gas companies prove his ruling to show prejudice. According to the Judges 2009 financial holdings, he held stock in Exxon Mobil during the days leading up to his ruling. After the public release of his financial records, Feldman said that he learned about his investments in Exxon Mobil on June 21st, the day prior to his ruling. He sold the stock the following morning.
Federal Judges, under the Federal law are not allowed to rule in cases where there could be a financial interest in the parties or the outcome. If there is an appearance of conflict they are prohibited from ruling on or being involved in those cases.
Some legal experts are saying that Feldman's decision to sell his stocks before making his ruling absolves him of any legal wrongdoing. "I doubt a recusal motion would survive under those circumstances," said Deborah Rhode, a law professor at Stanford Law School and director of the Stanford Center on the Legal Profession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
