"On Judge Levine's first week on the job, nearly twenty years ago, he came into my office and stated that he had promised Wendy Gramm, then Chairwoman of the Commission, that we would never rule in a complainant's favor," Painter wrote. "A review of his rulings will confirm that he fulfilled his vow."

Another chapter of How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Regulatory Apparatus.

Comments

[bill bush]

Am I missing something here, or did Judge Levine let this go on for nearly 20 years before speaking out? Is Painter's conduct not subject to some judicial review/reprimand/removal? It is not as if I were terribly surprised by it, and I am too old for wasting energy on pointless outrage, but I am still experiencing a few Gramms of disgust.

[Jon Lowder]

Apparently there's a story behind the story of Painter's retirement. His wife has is trying to seek guardianship over him, and he's sued for divorce. The full story is in today's Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304011604575564610646663830.html

An interesting side note is that the following three paragraphs appear in the online article but not in the print version delivered to my office this morning:

The agency's two administrative law judges have seen their role diminish in recent years. The CFTC can ask the Merit Systems Protection Board, an independent body in the executive branch, to remove or suspend an administrative law judge. Matt Shannon, a board official, said it doesn't have a record of any such request against Judge Painter.

In a separate action, a document dated Sept. 17 and signed by Judge Painter said the other administrative law judge, Bruce Levine, is biased against investors. The document said Judge Levine forces plaintiffs without legal representation "to run a hostile gauntlet until they lose hope."

Judge Levine declined to comment, but a former colleague defended Judge Levine's record and said he is fair.