Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued

Just Americans Making Ethical Statements Weblog ^ | October 25, 2008

[RatsDawg]

Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued

In the “never-ending” drama that is known as the 2008 Presidential election, there is an appearance that the decision issued yesterday by the Honorable Judge R. Barclay Surrick in the matter of Berg v. Obama might have been SENT to the judge just a short time BEFORE he released the decision.

A fax copy of the decision from Judge Surrick was faxed to Mr. Berg from the Judge’s Chambers, pages 1-36, beginning at 18:09 October 24, 2008, and that is clearly notated by the receiving fax, starting at page 01/36. Page 36/36 is marked 18:16 October 24, 2008. What is interesting is not at the TOP of the fax pages; it is at the bottom. From Judge Surrick's ruling

From Judge Surrick

At the bottom of each page is a notation from another FAX machine, indicating the date, page number and time. Unlike the pages faxed from Judge Surrick’s fax at 18:09, the “name” of the fax sender is blank, presumably so the sender’s identity could not be seen, and obviously with the sender unaware that the date and time would be stamped on it. The fax began from this mystery fax at 04:55P on October 24, 2008, and ended at 05:11P.

From all appearances, the clerk at Judge Surrick’s office merely took the fax off the machine, the Judge signed it, and it was faxed to Mr. Berg and the other attorneys involved in the case.

Why would a decision from the office of Judge Surrick have “fax date & time” stamp at the BOTTOM of its pages when it is faxed to the Plaintiff and Defendants? And why almost simultaneously were all of the docket links disabled on the case in PACER ( I checked other cases, and they weren’t disabled)?

Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision? Now an attorney, Mr. Seaman is an attorney at the firm of Sidley, Austin in Chicago. Ironically, this is the same firm that employed Michelle Robinson Obama and Bernardine Dorn (wife of William Ayers), and where Barack Obama met Michelle.

[CONFLICTOFINTEREST.jpg]

If I had to surmise from the manner in which things have evolved in this election process, I would link it to the Obama campaign and lawyers in Chicago. The time in Chicago is an hour behind Pennsylvania, and taking into account the slight few minutes that two fax machines may be off in their time settings, it could be concluded that at 4:55p CT, a law firm in Chicago began faxing the memorandum of the Judge’s decision to the JUDGE, and then his office began faxing it out immediately.

I am in the process of reviewing the memorandum, but one item that immediately caught my attention in a brief glance was this comment in the footnotes:

Moreover, the Court In Bullock did not limit or in any way invalidate votes that had already been cast; nor did it void the results of the elections that had taken place. Se Ed. at 136- 37, 149 (affirming that court’s permanent injunction of the filing fee law). By contrast, Plaintiff would have us derail the democratic process by invalidating a candidate for whom millions of people voted and who underwent excessive vetting during what was one of the most hotIy contested presidential primary in living memory. Pg 11

Points to Ponder:

(1) Why was the PACER system “links” in the Berg v. Obama docket disabled just MOMENTS before the decision was faxed out? Is it possible that the Judge had actually issued a DIFFERENT ruling, and was FORCED to issue the one that was sent to him?

[xkaydet65]

Joe Plugs Head?

[expatpat]

The explanation may be quite different.

The decision came out on a Saturday, with the Judge's secretary probably not at work. She may have finished it at home and faxed it from her home to the Judge.

[Calpernia]

>>>Is it possible that a former law clerk of Judge Surrick, Christoper B. Seaman, might have wrote the decision?

Obama worked at this firm and Andy Martin reported on it.

http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/09/andy-martin-exposes-barack-obamas-lies.html

Excerpt:

Obama's law degree thus appears to have been financed through the encouragement of persons who had been violent revolutionaries and remain unrepentant to this day, the same unconventional way the purchase of Obama's Chicago mansion was party financed by an Iraqi billionaire.

Why did Obama get hired as a "summer associate" in 1989 at the law firm which had hired Ayers' wife, and where Ayers' father was a prominent friend of the managing partner at Sidley & Austin? The answer is obvious. Ayers was grooming Obama as his future "front."

Where did Obama get his first and only legal job after Harvard? At a law firm where Tony Rezko was a prominent client and where name partner Judson Miner was a law school classmate of Bernadine Dohrn-Ayers. Yes, the pieces are starting to come together.

Was Obama telling ABC the truth when he said met the Ayers' at a coffee klatch at the Ayers home in 1995? Ayers had already been working with Obama for seven years; Ayers had appointed Obama to head a $50 million foundation. Did Ayers appoint a stranger? Or a front man? The answer is obvious.

(snip)

http://contrariancommentary.blogspot.com/2008/09/andy-martin-hammers-barack-obama-over.html

Excerpt:

1989 Tom Ayers and William Ayers get Obama a summer job at Sidley & Austin (where he meets Michelle Obama); Ayers' wife Bernadine Dohrn also worked at Sidley at about the same time as Barack and Michelle.

[mlocher]

I can’t believe that the judge did not make some sort of up or down ruling. Most liberal judges love to make decisions from the bench.

[Danae]

Thank you VERY much for the Ping Dawg! I have been waiting for your thread!

D

[mn-bush-man]

Order... yes. Memorandum of Law... NO WAY!!

[Danae]

Seaman doesn’t work for Surrick now, he works for the firm that Bernadine Dhorn, and Michelle-Baraks old firm, the firm that Ayers got the Job for Obama FOR...

yea, frickin web of corruption.

[Danae]

It came out Friday night.

[Tribune7]

ping

[kcvl]

In a 34-page memorandum and opinion, the judge said Berg’s allegations of harm were “too vague and too attenuated” to confer standing on him or any other voters.

Surrick ruled that Berg’s attempts to use certain laws to gain standing to pursue his claim that Obama was not a natural-born citizen were “frivolous and not worthy of discussion.”

The judge also said the harm Berg alleged did “not constitute an injury in fact” and Berg’s arguments to the contrary “ventured into the unreasonable.”

[RushingWater]

I was thinking “Faxing a Fax”?? Haven’t they heard of attaching a doc to an email? BUT, email would leave a record so perhaps Faxing is a no discovery option when the sender immediately shreds the original.

Grounds for an appeal and see how this one is explained?? If they don’t do cross shredding, might be some interesting trash from the Chicago law office.

[RatsDawg]

no problem!

[Islander7]

Philip J. Berg is Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court as Obama is "NOT" qualified to be President of the United States Lawsuit Against Obama Dismissed from Philadelphia Federal Court

(Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania – 10/25/08) - Philip J. Berg, Esquire, the Attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging Senator Obama’s lack of “qualifications” to serve as President of the United States, announced today that he is immediately appealing the dismissal of his case to the United States Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama, No. 08-cv-04083.

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned.

According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

We must legally prevent Obama, the unqualified candidate, from taking the Office of the Presidency of the United States,” Berg said.

Our website obamacrimes.com now has 71.8 + million hits. We are urging all to spread the word of our website – and forward to your local newspapers and radio and TV stations.

Berg again stressed his position regarding the urgency of this case as, “we” the people, are heading to a “Constitutional Crisis” if this case is not resolved forthwith.

PDF of ruling

There is no fax header at the bottom of these PDF pages. The quality is very poor though.

Berg's website

[jzlouis]

We need to flood both the media and congress. I have created a new petition to demand the media look into Obama’s eligibility for the Presidency. This petition sends letters to various media outlets. Please sign and pass it around.

http://www.rallycongress.com/gotcitizenship/1343/petition-to-demand-that-diane-feinstein-chairwoman-senate-committee-on-rules-and-administration-inve/

[BCR #226]

Then the People must remove him.

Mike

[SFConservative]

Then we have POTUS Biden with Pelosi waiting in the wings.

Then POTUS Biden will receive instructions to nominate a certain Hillary Rodham Clinton for VPOTUS and does so. She will sail through the confirmation process. Three months later, POTUS Biden will succumb to a mysterious, virulent, and fatal follicle infection, elevating the devastated Clinton to POTUS.

[NoLibZone]

Biden becomes President and next in line the VP.

Guess whose next in line.

[PressurePoint]

From the decision:

Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was "too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters."

Really? So now any claim that the Constitution is being violated can be dismissed because the harm of the violation is too vague? As if just violating the Constitution is not enough. Now you have to prove to some judge that the harm hurts you enough to warrant the court enforcing the Constitution.

Lost your right to free speech? Ahh, you keeping your mouth shut doesn't seem that harmful to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!

Gov't closed down your church and told you to worship in a mosque? Ahh, Jesus or Allah, the difference seems vague to Judge Surrick. DISMISSED!

Gov't confiscated your gun? Ahh, the likelihood that you'll need to defend yourself seems vague to Judge Surrick. Sorry, DISMISSED!

Wow, we are in for a wild ride.

[Canedawg]

Do you have a link to a readable version of the decision? The one i just downloaded is painful to read. Looks like it came off an old mimeograph machine.

[kcvl]

No, I’m sorry I don’t.