Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
and 685 cases ..
131 judges failed to catch the fact that they (or a family member) owned stock in a company that was before them in court.
- Thread starter Acer-m14
- Start date
On the fence with this one clearly a problem but in fairness I can find it plausible to believe many of these cases the judge may not have even been aware there was a conflict or potential conflict. Many people rely on their brokerage firm to handle their portfolio and may not even be aware or care what individual positions are invested in. They just monitor returns of the overall portfolio. How many of you know and/or monitor what individual companies are invested in your 401k's or pension's? What about positions that were purchased and sold before your quarterly statement arrived? That said they do have professional ethical responsibilities to make sure they're in compliance....
I hear what you are saying but don't the individual judges have any responsibility to find out what is in their portfolio before being assigned to a case? Since this is a practical concern and not simply a theoretical one my sense is the judges have the burden to prove they are on the right side of the ethical issue.
Agreed. I just think in at least some of these cases there may not have been any conflict of interest in fact despite there being a clear appearance of a conflict. Judge may not have even known (but he should have).
If I am unaware of a law do I get a free pass?
I didn't say that they should get a free pass but they may have been violating a law that resulted in no actual harm.
Like drunk driving, owning a firearm without a license, jaywalking?
First off no. If judge was not aware that he had a position in party to lawsuit and judged the case completely impartially where is the crime and who was harmed? Secondly ever get out of a speeding ticket because you were wearing your uniform or showed your military ID? Rhetorical question but happens all the time...
There is a difference between no harm being done and a Police Officer choosing to let you off with a warning.
Not to belabor this anymore but here goes lol...
1. It's also entirely possible that despite best efforts to comply a judge and or his staff missed a potential conflict of interest due to convoluted and complex corporate ownership structures. Hypothetical example with no bearing on actual cases involved here but real corporations... say Noveon Investments LLC was involved in litigation where judge owns one share of Berkshire Hathaway... Noveon Investments LLC is wholly owned by Noveon Holding Corp which is wholly owned by Lubrizol Corporation which is wholly owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Does judge have apparent conflict? Sure. Is he aware of it and did it affect any judgements he made during case? Not likely.
2. Same judge rules on behalf of Noveon Investments LLC and they win their discrimination lawsuit against the mailroom clerk. Did judge benefit financially from this ruling via material uptick in share price of Berkshire Hathaway? Not likely.
Again I'm not saying this is not a problem only its possible judges weren't aware of conflict and it may not have necessarily affected any case outcomes...
My $0.02.
1. It's also entirely possible that despite best efforts to comply a judge and or his staff missed a potential conflict of interest due to convoluted and complex corporate ownership structures. Hypothetical example with no bearing on actual cases involved here but real corporations... say Noveon Investments LLC was involved in litigation where judge owns one share of Berkshire Hathaway... Noveon Investments LLC is wholly owned by Noveon Holding Corp which is wholly owned by Lubrizol Corporation which is wholly owned by Berkshire Hathaway. Does judge have apparent conflict? Sure. Is he aware of it and did it affect any judgements he made during case? Not likely.
2. Same judge rules on behalf of Noveon Investments LLC and they win their discrimination lawsuit against the mailroom clerk. Did judge benefit financially from this ruling via material uptick in share price of Berkshire Hathaway? Not likely.
Again I'm not saying this is not a problem only its possible judges weren't aware of conflict and it may not have necessarily affected any case outcomes...
My $0.02.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
maybe Fed Judges shouldn't own shares in stocks with the fat paycheck they get from us .... 
Dark path right there just saying...maybe Fed Judges shouldn't own shares in stocks with the fat paycheck they get from us ....
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
Agree 100%.
If a judge truly has no knowledge of the fact the company they are ruling for/against in a certain case is connected to them somehow, then there's definitely no conflict of interest. I can guarantee that my 401k has investments in companies that I've never heard of and know nothing about. So plausible deniability is real here.
If one just stands back a looks at the judiciary in toto, - the blatant political bias, participation in nefarious .GOV schemes (issuing warrants to the Eff-Bee-Eye, ever), weakness in the face of DemoNazis and the press (particularly SCROTUM), sticking their fingers in places they have no standing, etc, etc,etc......
My conclusion is they're alk totally corrupt, as a group, until proved otherwise. Only Clarence Thomas gets out of that group.
Much of the vile shit the DemoNazis have pulled has been with the cover of some shitweasel in a black robe issuing completely bogus rulings.
My conclusion is they're alk totally corrupt, as a group, until proved otherwise. Only Clarence Thomas gets out of that group.
Much of the vile shit the DemoNazis have pulled has been with the cover of some shitweasel in a black robe issuing completely bogus rulings.