Posted on 10/25/2008 8:18:39 PM PDT by 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?
Surrick is a Clinton judge.
Which speaks for itself.
What if Barack Odingo is elected POTUS, and later it’s proven beyond any doubt that he was born in Kenya, and is a fraudulent president according to the Constitution?
the fix is in
Impeachment?
RAT judge. be prepared for a lot more of this.
Then we have POTUS Biden with Pelosi waiting in the wings.
This should be investigated and this lazy judge impeached for not doing his job!
Surrick is named to SCOTUS.
Deportation?
I would be interested to hear what Berg has to say on this.
This fax thing is suspicious, particularly in the context of the written decision allegedly containing language dismissing the plaintiff’s claims as “ridiculous, untrue, frivolous, etc.”
In an earlier thread I described these characterizations as beyond the purview of a proper decision on a motion to dismiss, and was clearly overkill by a verbose judge, for whom 34 pages of diatribe seemed appropriate.
Perhaps the decision was written by a partisan hack.
President Biden.
not to diminish the allegations suggested here, but it is commonplace for a judge’s law clerk to write the judge’s decisions. which is what probably happened here. that will certainly be the excuse offered, in any event.
ping
I’m sure the clintons are aware of this.Time for drudge to look at this.
THIS REALLY STINKS!!!
BUT ITS NOTHING COMPRED TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN
IF THAT RAT GETS THE POTUS!!
ALL JUSTICE WILL END!!
HUGO CHAVEZ WILL LOOK LIKE A SAINT!
NOBAMA IN 08!! NOBAMAS EVER FOR AMERICA!!!
Sure looks that way.
Hmm,I read somewhere that the judge liked to write his own decisions.Not this time I guess.
Just for info:
Judge’s orders are often written by the attorney(s) for the party wishing the order to be made, then the judge signs it.
Or, the judge can order one party to write up the order as he/she (the judge) instructed him/her to do, and if the order complies with the judge’s request, it is then signed by the judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.