Posted on 10/26/2008 3:32:10 PM PDT by pissant
Phil Berg is going to have some very interesting challenges ahead when he exposes the chain of events regarding this ruling. The ruling itself appears as though it should be thrown out; it isn’t even file or date stamped. First, there’s - CONFLICT OF INTEREST.; Obama’s Birth Certificate Judge-Obama Linkage:
Barack and Michelle worked at Sidley Austin law when they met.
Also working with Michelle at Sidley at the same time was one Bernardine Dohrn, beloved wife of Bill Ayers.
Now it turns out a fellow named Christopher B. Seaman is the former law clerk for U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick.
Christopher B. Seaman also works for a firm named Sidley Austin.
Gosh. It’s a small world after all.
The original faxed decision from the Clerk of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA to attorney Philip J Berg appears to have been faxed to Judge Surrick for him to sign. But if this is the case, the questions becomes who wrote the decision and faxed it for the Judges signature?
(go to link to see fraudulent document)
DID SOMEONE TELL JUDGE R. BARCLAY SURRICK WHAT HIS RULING WOULD BE?
(Excerpt) Read more at caosblog.com ...
1. The “mystery Fax (header on the bottom of the 36 pages) began at 4:55PM and ended at 5:11PM for a total of 16 minutes. But where was the “mystery fax” machine located?
2. The fax from Judge Surricks office to Phillip Berg started at 18:09 or (6:09PM) and ended at 18:16 or (6:16PM) for a total of 7 minutes. Now what would cause a whole 9 minute discrepancy in the transmission times of a fax on the exact same number of pages? And even a slower machine would not cause a difference of more than double the time of transmission for the same number of pages.
3. The ORDER has no file/date stamp on the document at any page whatsoever which is required and is standard Court procedure. Why?
Judge R. Barclay Surrick, whether intentional or not, has created a situation that challenges the very integrity of the US District Court for the Eastern District of PA as well as the integrity of the Judge himself.
All of these issues must be address without delay, and the owner and location of the “mystery Fax” must be disclosed immediately with explanation as to why a ruling said to be issued by Judge Surrick, was in reality Faxed to Judge Surrick? The first and only Fax header that should be on the ruling when faxed to Attorney Philip J Berg should have been none other than that of Judge Surrick alone.
Very, very sloppy!!!
ping
And we thought the Toons were dirty.
SURRICK looks like a PARROT, certainly NOT A JUDGE!
Looks like some very dirty judging here and what would we expect from a Clintoon appointee?
Then in appealing to SCOTUS, Berg better spell them out.
Come on, now. This is ridiculous. Sidley Austin is a HUGE law firm. It has nearly 2000 attorneys at any one time — not to mention contract attorneys, secretaries, law clerks and ancillary staff.
So ... a former law clerk of Surrick worked at one of the largest firms in the US, as did the Obama’s, and that’s supposed to be a conflict of interest?
It would be odd for a Chicago attorney to NOT have put in some time at Sidley. Most attorneys that are worth anything have put in some time at one of the big firms — personally, I’ve worked as a contractor with Sidley Austin, Baker Botts, Fulbright & Jaworski, and Bracewell Giuliani.
This is a tepid connection at best ... it is not as if they were at the same 10-attorney firm and thus must’ve known each other.
H
It is against the law to send a FAX without an identification and telephone number showing where it came from.
And the fax of a fax?
Obama bin fixing. He should be thrown out along with his wife of the United States.
The rest of this nonsense is hinged on a forgotten date stamp, and the fact that a fax took 9 minutes longer in one particular transmission?
Why is this a problem? So he forgot to date stamp it ... it happens. Lawyers and Judges occassionally forget to sign or stamp something.
This is just typical filing procedure. Lower-court judges rarely write their own decisions. Attorneys typically are required to attach a “suggested” decision to each motion that is filed. If necessary, the judge makes changes to the decision authored by the winning party — then he signs it. Sometimes edits aren’t necessary. I’ve written these Judgments myself.
You’re grasping.
H
Surrick isn’t a judge, he’s a janitor.
Dan Rather did it from a remote Kinko’s somewhere. Phony but accurate.
Your way off base here!
My wife works for a office that has about the same amount and they all know each other!
You need to dream something better!
I think so. You arguments do not make sense!
Thanks pissant. Appears to be a conflict of interest.
Ping.
"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments.
Bring the revolution home.
Kill your parents, that's where it's really at."
- - - Bill Ayers, Weather Underground, 1970.
Barack Obama worked at Sidley Austin in 1989. The goof pictured above works at Sidley NOW (19 years later).
How exactly is that a conflict of interest for the judge that used to employ the current-Sidley goofball? The judge used to have an employee that NOW works for a firm that employed Obama in the 80’s? That isn’t a conflict ... that’s 6-degrees of Kevin Bacon.
H
INDEED! INDEED!
Any hint or reason to believe Berg will do so?
>> Are you a TROLL? I think so. You arguments do not make sense!
Are you?
No, I’m not. Just trying to make we conservatives look more sensible than this thread makes us out to be.
H
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.