Thought it might be of interest.
BTTT
alleged “jusicial incest” ???
Not close enough to make the right people care.
You need to email this directly to Phil Berg and to Jeff Scrieber. This is very important if its the same guy.
I read that they found his wife (who is a lawyer) gives to and supports Republicans, specifically Arlen Specter.
I am beginning to think that with all of the corruption and evil forces working for bambi, it will take a miracle for McCain to overcome them.
Thank goodness....I believe in miracles!! Prayers up!!
This country needs an enema to flush out the sh*t.
Send it to Greta VanSustern at Fox News.
Send it to Berg so he can use it in his appeal to the Supreme Court.
Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2115274/posts
BTTT
It’s interesting, but my layman opinion its not a big deal.
There are more people on this board who think the Berg case is invalid because he is a “truther”. I wonder if 9-11 never happened would they have a reason to believe in the Berg case?....but I digress.
This cause needs a champion who can get on tv and draw the attention it needs. Even Drudge has punted as he reports a piss poor worded press statement of its demise and not one time reported on the case before.
This is an eligibility issue. obama has failed to address it and therefore not eligible to be POTUS. Why do so many get lost with the simplicity of this case?
Ummm...I think this is stretching it a bit. But I would concede that Judge Surrick, as a Clinton appointee and as a Democrat, is compromised.
We Washington State Republicans saw the same thing when the Dems committed massive election fraud in King County four years ago (2004). The judge assigned to the case was a former Democrat party activist and Clinton appointee. He laughed the Republicans out of his courtroom.
Christopher B. Seaman
Biography
Christopher B. Seaman is an associate in Sidley Austin LLP’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice group. Before joining Sidley, he was a law clerk to Judge R. Barclay Surrick, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where he worked on a variety of civil and criminal litigation. In law school, Christopher was an Executive Editor of the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and received the Edwin R. Keedy Law Review Award for most significant contribution to the journal. Christopher was also a Legal Writing Instructor at Penn Law and a semifinalist in the school’s moot court competition.
http://mailman.lls.edu/pipermail/election-law/2002-June/001549.html
This is old- 2002 ? But shows posible interest in Election law.
Christopher B Seaman (Sidley Austin LLp/Attorney), (Zip code: 60614) $250 to FRIENDS OF TAMMY DUCKWORTH on 10/20/06
He co-authored a book Peyton McCrary, Christopher Seaman, & Richard Valelly, The End of Preclearance as We Knew It: How the Supreme Court Transformed Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 11 Mich. J. Race & L. 275 (Spring 2006).
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires certain jurisdictions with a history of racial discrimination to obtain “preclearance” of proposed electoral changes from the United States Department of Justice or a three-judge panel in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This provision, which is set to expire in August 2007, has successfully reduced racial and ethnic discrimination in voting. The United States Supreme Court determined in a 5–4 decision, Reno v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 230 (2000), that Section 5’s prohibition on the enforcement of electoral changes which have a discriminatory purpose does not apply to electoral changes that were not intended to “retrogress,” or make worse, the position of minority voters. This interpretation upset a long-standing consensus among executive, legislative, and judicial actors that Section 5 prohibited all changes enacted with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose, not just those which made minority voters worse off. This Article explains how the Bossier majority dramatically transformed Section 5 and demonstrates, through an empirical analysis of the Justice Department’s Section 5 objection letters, how it significantly weakened the statute’s ability to protect minority voting rights. It concludes by arguing that Congress should amend Section 5 in 2007 to supercede the Bossier decision.
This appears to be what pre-clearance is all about - http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju24283.000/hju24283_0f.htm
SO it is facsinatng that a gentleman that worked in the offices of the judge who dismissed the lawsuit also works now at the same law frm as Mr. Obama and Michelle used to.ANd o authored a book about redistricting etc to extend or protect minority vong rights.
But he seems to work on patents now.
BUMP
Thanks for the post, Gordon.