Thank you for helping put Justice back in the Justice Department!
Federal Judge Martin Feldman has SERIOUS conflict of interest!
The federal judge who overturned the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling has refused to disqualify himself from the case, when he has made personal investments in off shore drilling including BP. Judge Martin Feldman must not be allowed to rule on a case that interferes with his personal investments in Off Shore Drilling, Oil and Gas. He is not above the law. As a juror I have been told that I cannot participate in a case when I have a conflict of interest or bias that relates to the case. Feldman's excuse was that he forgot he owned stock in off shore drilling when he took the case, but he still refuses to withdraw himself from the case.
Martin Feldman conflict of interest is a Federal Violoation of Judicial Code of Conduct. As a judge defending his investments is in violation with federal law. We need a federal judge that does not have personal investments in off shore drilling. In addition to the violation, he has now refused to withdraw from the case, demonstrating his conflict of interest which is a Federal Crime.
(Check out ALL his OIL INVESTMENTS at the bottom of this post.)

We the People find Martin Feldman in violation of the Code of Conduct serving on a case with Conflict of Interest and must be disqualified as an officer making decisions that affect his personal investments. We need a judge that does not have investments in Off Shore Drilling, Oil or Gas to rule on such matters. According to Rules of the Judiciary Commission Section 27, Feldman has committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, implying that he forgot about his personal investments in oil drilling. However, even after remembering, he still refuses to withdraw from the case, defending his personal investments. This is a direct violation of Article V, 25 (c)of the Constitution which is a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice, by ignoring the Code of Conduct. We recommend to the Court that judge Martin Feldman be immediately disqualified from exercising any judicial function, that involve his personal investments, which is a serious crime. Many allegations of misconduct have been recorded and documented, and this motion requests an investigation of Martin Feldman's books, records, documents, and other evidence that may be heard before the courts, and replaced with a judge that does not own investments in oil. As a juror many times I have been made fully aware of what constitutes bias, unfairness, injustice, impartiality, and conflict of interest. A prompt hearing date is in order according to review material facts with respect to these sanctions. And according to RULE XII., RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION, A commission member shall recuse himself in any matter in which recusal would be required by a judge under the Code of Judicial Conduct or where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.  Federal Judge Martin Feldman is in Violation of Judicial Code of Conduct, and must be disqualified to judge in any case that involves Off Shore Drilling, Oil or Gas, as any other citizen of the United States.

Federal Laws Currently in Violation Below:

According to the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, CANON 3 A Judge Shall Perform the Duties of Office Impartially and Diligently In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply: (4) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, and shall not permit others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so. CANON 5 Extra-Judicial Activities/ A Judge Shall Regulate Extra-Judicial Activities to Minimize the Risk of Conflict With Judicial Duties C. Financial Activities. (1) A judge shall refrain from financial and business dealings that tend to reflect adversely on the judge's impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties, exploit the judge's judicial position, or involve the judge in frequent transactions with lawyers or persons likely to come before the court on which he or she serves. (2) Subject to the requirement of subsection (1), a judge may hold and manage investments, including real estate, and engage in other remunerative activity but shall not serve as an officer, director, manager, or employee of any bank, lending institution, homestead or savings and loan association, insurance company, public utility, and other businesses affected with a public interest. (3) A judge should manage investments and other financial interests to minimize the number of cases in which he is disqualified. As soon as a judge can do so without serious financial detriment, he or she shall divest himself or herself of investments and other financial interests that might require frequent recusation.  RULE III. FORM OF COMPLAINTS. Complaints made to the Commission concerning the misconduct or disability of a judge should be in writing and should specify the misconduct or disability complained of, and should be signed by the complainant[s]. The Commission, however, may consider alleged misconduct or disability of any judge from whatever source, including anonymous complaints and news reports, and may do so on its own motion. RULE IV. RECEIPT OF COMPLAINTS; SCREENED OUT COMPLAINTS.All complaints should be directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, who is the Judicial Administrator of the State of Louisiana, at 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190, New Orleans, Louisiana 70130-8101 or to Special Counsel, who is the legal counsel whose duties are described in JCL Rule XI B. Any member of the Commission, however, may receive a complaint or bring any matter to the attention of the Commission on his or her own motion.The Judicial Administrator may (1) direct such complaints to Special Counsel, for further screening and preliminary investigation, or (2) in his discretion, bring such complaints directly to the attention of the Chair for other action, as the circumstances may require. Special Counsel shall maintain a docket of all complaints and shall provide (a) to the Commission, upon the completion of each reporting stage of the proceedings, a full written report as to pending open files; and (b) a full written and/or other report upon the specific request of the Chair and/or the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. Rule XXIII, Sec. 3 of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court requires the Commission to commence a preliminary investigation of complaints that are %u2026allege facts that, if true, constitute judicial conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of 1974 La. Const. art. V, Sec. 25C. %u2026If a file has been screened out and the Commission has not reversed the screen out decision, and a complainant objects, he or she may lodge a written appeal of the screen out decision, which shall be directed to the Chief Executive Officer or to the Special Counsel to the Commission. The request for appeal must state the basis for his or her disagreement with the screen out decision, and may provide further information to the Commission concerning the facts underlying the original complaint. The Commission will review the original complaint and the written request for appeal at a subsequent regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission, and the decision made by the Commission concerning the appeal shall be final. RULE VI. CONDUCT OF INVESTIGATIONS.With respect to a preliminary investigation for the purpose of determining whether a hearing should be held on any complaint, the Commission may cause such investigation to be made in any manner it deems proper. It may be made by the Chief Executive Officer, the Judicial Administrator, by Special Counsel, or by any other person designated by the Commission who is not a member of the Commission, such as a Special Counsel Ad Hoc. Section 27. Intermrim Disqualification (1) indentifies this conflict of interest and refusal to withdraw from the case a felony, (2) it also reflects on the judge's honesty and trustworthiness as judge. This petition will be filed with the Judiciary Commission, and shall become public record, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
                              Complaints made to the Commission concerning the misconduct or disability of a judge should be in writing, or reduced to writing, and should specify the misconduct or disability complained of, and should be signed by the complainant.The Commission, however, may consider alleged misconduct or disability of any judge from whatever source, including anonymous complaints and news reports, and may do so on its own motion. All complaints should be directed to the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission, who is the Judicial Administrator of the State of Louisiana, at 400 Royal Street, Suite 1190, New Orleans, Louisiana or to Special Counsel, who is the legal counsel whose duties are described in JCL Rule XI B. Any member of the Commission, however, may receive a complaint or bring any matter to the attention of the Commission on his or her own motion. The Judicial Administrator may (1) direct such complaints to Special Counsel, for further screening and preliminary investigation, or (2) in his discretion, bring such complaints directly to the attention of the Chair for other action, as the circumstances may require. Special Counsel shall maintain a docket of all complaints and shall provide (a) to the Commission, upon the completion of each reporting stage of the proceedings, a full written report as to pending open files; and (b) a full written and/or other report upon the specific request of the Chair and/or the Chief Executive Officer of the Commission. Rule XXIII, Sec. 3 of the Rules of the Louisiana Supreme Court requires the Commission to commence a preliminary investigation of complaints that are not obviously unfounded or frivolous and that allege facts that, if true, constitute judicial conduct in violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct or of 1974 La. Const. art. V, Sec. 25C. D. The failure or refusal of a judge to cooperate in an investigation, or the use of dilatory practices, frivolous or unfounded responses or arguments, or other uncooperative behavior may be considered by the Commission in determining whether or not to recommend a sanction to the Louisiana Supreme Court and may bear on the severity of the sanction actually recommended. E. The Chair, in his or her discretion, may name one commission member to serve as case manager once formal charges have been filed against a judge. The case manager's purpose it to facilitate movement of the case through the system and to address procedural problems and issues. The case manager shall not discuss the merits of the case with the Special Counsel or legal counsel for the judge or with the judge himself or herself. When a judge whose conduct has been criticized as violative of the Code of Judicial Conduct expresses interest in entering into a deferred recommendation of discipline agreement with the Commission, Commission Counsel or Special Counsel, depending upon who received the information, shall immediately report such request to the case manager assigned to the case. The case manager shall communicate the judges request to the other Commission members at the next scheduled meeting of the Commission, with a recommendation to the other members concerning the request. Rule VIII. CONDUCT OF HEARINGS, ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE; NO RECORDING OF PROCEEDINGS. B (2) All proposed exhibits of both Special Counsel and the judge whose conduct is the subject of the proceedings shall be numbered and marked, with a list of the exhibits attached. All exhibits shall be introduced into evidence en globo at the commencement of the hearing, except in the case of objections to admissibility. The Chair may either rule on any objection to the admissibility of one or more exhibits or defer the ruling until a later specific time in the proceedings. Any exhibit sought to be introduced that contains information that is privileged and confidential by law, such as case records from juvenile courts that are subject to statutory confidentiality rules, shall only be admitted if the confidential portions of the exhibits are marked out or otherwise excerpted from the exhibit. When an audio or video tape constitutes an exhibit, except in exigent circumstances (decided in the discretion of the Chair), such tape must be introduced along with a transcription thereof made by a certified court reporter.                               RULE XVII. ENFORCEMENT OF FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE RULES A. This rule shall apply to proceedings related to the financial statements required to be filed by La. Sup. Ct. Rule XXXIX (Financial Disclosure) or by La. Sup. Ct. Rule XL (Financial Disclosure by Non-Incumbent Candidates for Elective Judicial Office). B. Whenever a matter pertaining to financial disclosure is referred to the Commission by the judicial administrator%u2019s office pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 4 (C)(1) or 4(C)(2) of La. Sup. Ct. Rule XXXIX, and the Commission finds that a person may have failed to file a financial statement or may have failed to disclose or disclose accurately the required information, the Commission shall direct the Office of Special Counsel to prepare and process a formal charge, and a hearing on the formal charge shall be held before a hearing officer.C. Whenever the Commission receives a written complaint from a source other than the judicial administrator that is directed to the accuracy or completeness of a financial statement that has been filed pursuant to La. S.Ct. Rule XXXIX, and the Commission has determined that the complaint is not frivolous, the Commission shall mail the complaint by certified mail to the judge or justice of the peace who is the subject of the complaint. The judge or justice of the peace shall be asked to answer the complaint within fourteen business days after the complaint is received. A five-day extension may be granted for good cause. If the Commission finds in connection with a written answer that no violation of the financial disclosure requirements has occurred, no penalties shall be assessed against the person. If the Commission finds that the person may have failed to file a financial statement or may have failed to disclose or accurately disclose the required information, the Commission shall direct the Office of Special Counsel to prepare and process a formal charge and a hearing on the formal charge shall be held before a hearing officer. D. A hearing on a formal charge shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated pursuant to La. Sup. Ct. Rule XXIII, Sec. 29(a). The hearing officer shall be selected for the hearing in accordance with La. Sup. Ct. Rule XXIII, Sec. 29(b), and the hearing shall be convened and conducted in accordance with La. Sup. Ct. Rule XXIII, Sec. 29. E. The hearing will be limited to the following issues: (1) whether or not the person failed to file a financial statement; (2) whether or not the person failed to disclose or accurately disclose the required information; and/or (iii) whether the failure was willful and knowing.

Read more: http://www.prwatch.org/Judge%20Feldman%20Dollars%20and%20Sense (Article below is a clip from the website above, Submitted by Lisa Graves on June 24, 2010 - 2:50pm)

Income
Judicial salary (excluding benefits and retirement): $169,300
Earnings from investments: up to $174,000
Due to the way the disclosure form obscures actual amounts, the range of his investment income adds up to between $37,524, if he received the bare minimum at each disclosure threshold, and $174,000, if he received the maximum. The investment earnings constituted between about 20% of his federal salary and over 100% of it.

Oil exploration-related investment income in 2008
* Transocean, earned up to $1000 on an investment of up to $15,000; Transocean describes itself as "the world's largest off-shore drilling" and owned the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig leased to BP that is at the heart of the disaster in the Gulf. Judge Feldman's investment in Transocean dates back to 2004, according to his older financial disclosure forms.

* ATP Oil & Gas, earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; ATP describes itself as an innovator in deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

* Ocean Energy Notes, earned between $1,000 and $2,500 on an investment of up to $50,000; this company describes itself as developing "submersible drilling rigs" and working on drilling platforms (what it terms "Floating Production, Storage and Offloading" (FPSO) vessels).

* Hercules Offshore, earned a dividend of between $5,001 and $15,000 on the sale of up to $15,000 in stock and also purchased up to $15,000 in company stock, earning up to a $2,500 dividend; Hercules describes itself as having the largest fleet of jack-up or mobile rigs in the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Feldman had multiple transactions involving Hercules, which he began investing in 2008.

* Halliburton Co., earned a gain of up to $1,000 on the sale of up to $15,000 in stock; Halliburton describes itself as an expert in deepwater drilling and as one of the world's largest energy companies.

* KBR Inc., earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; KBR describes itself as a leader in oil refining.

* Parker Drilling Company, earned a dividend of up to $1000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; Parker describes itself as specializing in off-shore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.

* Rowan Companies, Inc., earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; Rowan describes itself as having an extensive fleet of off-shore rigs and "specializing in innovative drilling products and systems including those that serve our niche market %u2014 hard-to-drill deep gas wells.".

* General Electric, earned up to $2,500 on an investment of up to $15,000; GE recently won the largest "subsea" drilling contract in the industry to date and earlier this year invested over $150 million in a partnership with ATP for Gulf of Mexico drilling.

* Quicksilver Resources, earned up to $15,000 on the sale of an investment of upt to $15,000, with a gain of up to $2,500; Quicksilver describes itself as an oil and natural gas exploration company in Ft. Worth.

* Atlas Energy Resources, earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; Atlas describes itself as a natural gas exploration company and one of the leading producers of natural gas from Marcellus Shale.

* TXCO Resources, Inc., earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; TXCO describes itself as a player in shale and oil sands exploration.

* EV Energy Partners LP, earned up to $1000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; EV describes itself as an operator of U.S. gas and oil field assets.

*Macquarie Intrastruct, earned up to $1000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; Macquarie describes itself as operating oil and gas infrastructure in the U.S. such as pipelines.

*BPZ Resources, earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; BPZ describes itself as an oil and gas exploration company in Peru.

*El Paso Corp., earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; El Paso describes itself as "the nation%u2019s leading interstate natural gas pipeline franchises" including extensive Gulf coast pipeline assets. Judge Feldman also sold his interest in a subsidiary, El Paso Pipeline Partners LP, earning up to $1000 on an investment of up to $15,000.

* Chesapeake Energy Corp., earned up to $1,000 on a new investment of up to $15,000; Chesapeake describes itself as a leader in natural gas production.

* Peabody Energy, earned $1,000 or less on investment of between $15,001 and $50,000; Peabody describes itself as the world's largest private sector coal company.

* Prospect Energy, earned up to $1,000 on an investment of up to $15,000; Prospect is an energy finance company.

* NGP Capital Resources, earned up to $2,500 on the sale of an investment of up to $15,000; NGP describes itself as focusing on investing in oil and natural gas companies.

* Pengrowth Energy Trust,earned up to $1,000 on an investment of up to $15,000 as part of a share distribution; Pengrowth describes itself as "an oil and gas" operating company.

* Blackrock (various accounts), earned between $11,000 and $32,500 on investments worth up to $45,000; Blackrock has been one of BP's largest shareholders.

In addition, Judge Feldman held investments in Citigroup and JP Morgan Chase, among other banks.

It's certainly fair to say that as of his last known financial disclosure report, Judge Feldman was plainly an investor and speculator in oil and gas exploration, including deepwater drilling, and profited from these investments.

Thank you for helping put Justice back in the Justice Department!
Federal Judge Martin Feldman has SERIOUS conflict of interest!
The federal judge who overturned the Obama administration's initial six-month moratorium on deepwater oil drilling has refused to disqualify himself from the case, when he has made personal investments in off shore drilling including BP. Judge Martin Feldman must not be allowed to rule on a case that interferes with his personal investments in Off Shore Drilling, Oil and Gas. He is not above the law. As a juror I have been told that I cannot participate in a case when I have a conflict of interest or bias that relates to the case. Feldman's excuse was that he forgot he owned stock in off shore drilling when he took the case, but he still refuses to withdraw himself from the case.
Martin Feldman's conflict of interest is a Federal Violoation of Judicial Code of Conduct. As a judge defending his investments is in violation with federal law. We need a federal judge that does not have personal investments in off shore drilling. In addition to the violation, he has now refused to withdraw from the case, demonstrating his conflict of interest which is a Federal Crime. We the People find Martin Feldman in violation of the Code of Conduct serving on a case with Conflict of Interest and must be disqualified as an officer making decisions that affect his personal investments. We need a judge that does not have investments in Off Shore Drilling, Oil or Gas to rule on such matters. According to Rules of the Judiciary Commission Section 27, Feldman has committed a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, implying that he forgot about his personal investments in oil drilling. However, even after remembering, he still refuses to withdraw from the case, defending his personal investments. This is a direct violation of Article V, 25 (c)of the Constitution which is a substantial threat of serious harm to the public and to the administration of justice, by ignoring the Code of Conduct. We recommend to the Court that judge Martin Feldman be immediately disqualified from exercising any judicial function, that involve his personal investments, which is a serious crime. Many allegations of misconduct have been recorded and documented, and this motion requests an investigation of Martin Feldman's books, records, documents, and other evidence that may be heard before the courts, and replaced with a judge that does not own investments in oil. As a juror many times I have been made fully aware of what constitutes bias, unfairness, injustice, impartiality, and conflict of interest. A prompt hearing date is in order according to review material facts with respect to these sanctions. And according to RULE XII., RECUSAL OR DISQUALIFICATION, A commission member shall recuse himself in any matter in which recusal would be required by a judge under the Code of Judicial Conduct or where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Federal Judge Martin Feldman is in Violation of Judicial Code of Conduct, and must be disqualified to judge in any case that involves Off Shore Drilling, Oil or Gas, as any other citizen of the United States.