Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Posted: 4/28/2014 3:24:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2014 3:25:41 AM EDT by Bhart89]
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_APPEALS_JUDGES_CONFLICTS_OF_INTEREST?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2014-04-28-00-05-22



WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than a dozen federal appeals court judges have violated federal conflict-of-interest laws over the past three years, throwing into doubt decisions in 26 cases, according to an analysis from a watchdog group.

The Center for Public Integrity, in a report being released Monday, found 24 cases in which judges ruled despite owning stock in a company appearing before them. In two other cases, the judges had financial ties to law firms representing one of the parties.
View Quote

Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:26:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:26:54 AM EDT
I'll bet Harry Reid will be outraged when he hears this.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:30:07 AM EDT
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:31:23 AM EDT
Corruption in the .gov?

Unpossible, I say.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:32:50 AM EDT
Here is all the fucks I give




Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:38:26 AM EDT
Hey Congress, the power of impeachment isn't just for presidents. If you can't find at least one crooked federal official to impeach a year, you're not really trying.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:41:23 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Tomislav:


Corruption in the .gov?



Unpossible, I say.
View Quote




 
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:45:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 4/28/2014 3:46:25 AM EDT by Shakes525]
I guess the one thing I would want to know... Were they funds which a portion of was invested in those companies, or was it stock they directly owned?






The first I could see as an "oops", the second would be far worse to me.




Whatever happened to the stink that started up over members of congress being exempt from insider trading?  Did that just quietly get swept under the rug?

 
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:46:19 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shakes525:
I guess the one thing I would want to know... Were they funds which a portion of was invested in those companies, or was it stock they directly owned?

The first I could see as an "oops", the second would be far worse to me.
View Quote


I assume it is directly owned and not mutual funds.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:46:41 AM EDT
We need to be more tolerant and less judgemental of our wonderful legal system. After all, it is designed for the rich.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:47:12 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
I assume it is directly owned and not mutual funds.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:



Originally Posted By Shakes525:

I guess the one thing I would want to know... Were they funds which a portion of was invested in those companies, or was it stock they directly owned?



The first I could see as an "oops", the second would be far worse to me.





I assume it is directly owned and not mutual funds.




 
I would too, but new agencies sometimes... going for whatever they can get their hands on ya know?
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:48:53 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shakes525:

  I would too, but new agencies sometimes... going for whatever they can get their hands on ya know?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Shakes525:
Originally Posted By RDak:
Originally Posted By Shakes525:
I guess the one thing I would want to know... Were they funds which a portion of was invested in those companies, or was it stock they directly owned?

The first I could see as an "oops", the second would be far worse to me.


I assume it is directly owned and not mutual funds.

  I would too, but new agencies sometimes... going for whatever they can get their hands on ya know?


Could be.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:50:06 AM EDT

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:
Could be.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By RDak:



Originally Posted By Shakes525:


Originally Posted By RDak:


Originally Posted By Shakes525:

I guess the one thing I would want to know... Were they funds which a portion of was invested in those companies, or was it stock they directly owned?



The first I could see as an "oops", the second would be far worse to me.





I assume it is directly owned and not mutual funds.


  I would too, but new agencies sometimes... going for whatever they can get their hands on ya know?





Could be.




 
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:54:12 AM EDT

There is a price tag on everything.
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:54:19 AM EDT
well it's not like the rule of law means a damn thing anymore..
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 3:59:18 AM EDT

Link Posted: 4/28/2014 4:01:49 AM EDT
nothing will happen, business as usual
Link Posted: 4/28/2014 4:06:03 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By douglasmorris99:
well it's not like the rule of law means a damn thing anymore..
View Quote



No shit,  They are all doing just about what they want.  

The laws were used to protect the commie bastards for a while, now that they are in power  they dont need no stinking laws or rights they are finished trickfucking the system,  now they are the system..
Top Top