Posted on 10/26/2008 5:42:16 PM PDT by NoobRep
They thought they were getting hammered with calls before-wait until tomorrow. We need to know who helped right this decision. I am thinking that suppressing fax sender information through the courts is against the law. Very sloppy indeed. I want to know who contributed to this decision and why the information was left off the fax header. Apparently whoever did this, was too stupid to remove the time stamp.
Were you bitten by a moose?
What is this all about?
Speaking of getting hammered...
The poster is referring to a question about who actually wrote the decision. The decision appears to have been faxed to Judge Surrick for his signature. There is a question whether the person that wrote the decision did it at the judge’s request, or perhaps sent it to him and told the judge to sign it. In the latter case, serious questions arise about outside influence.
Wat?
Is this about the Reverend Right?
Yes, as its entirely out of the realm of question that Obama’s nazi storm troopers would tell this Judge that he and his family will disappear if this decision goes any way but for Obama.
Unless this Judge is absolutely stupid, this is either Berg telling a story or the Judge wanted Berg to know without telling him that he was forced to sign the petition and did not write it.
Ask the Shadow.......the Shadow knows.
This is the most ridiculous part of the whole Surrick order-notice the spelling error as well:
“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 hotly contested presidential primary in living memory. Pg 11”
Perhaps he shot a moose in his pajamas...
Clearly, it wasn't you.
Sorry-I hope you’ll forgive me for my spelling error.
???
I’m lost. Which isn’t that unusual these days.
I’m just teasing you.
Typically it is presented to opposing counsel who then has the opportunity to object.
If there are no objections — or if the objections are not well taken — then the court adopts the proposed order as its own and signes it.
All that we know is that Judge R. Barclay Surrick is a Clinton appointee.
Why is the identity missing and only the date and time stamp on the document? Why would Surrick “forward” any order that he received from outside his office, onto Berg?
The judge is an ObamaBot
This is silliness. It is common court procedure to ask the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law with their submissions. Most civil decisions aren’t written by Shakespeare. They often contain direct language from the prevailing party, adopted by the judge and edited by his law clerk.
Nothing here.
OR
The judge dictated the decision and the transcriptionist faxed the hard copy back to him for signature.
Pdf’s may not be his protocol.
Along with their briefs, etc., attorneys usually submit an order to be signed by the judge hearing the case if that side prevails.
I am leaning toward the second.
As for why the Judge faxed the plaintiff a copy of the order...I'll hazard a guess that it was because the order terminates plaintiff's case — and starts the clock on the appeal.
So we’re to assume that some unknown outside party faxed this order to Surrick and then he faxed it to Berg? For what reason would he need to send anything on to Berg that comes from anyone but himself? That doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. And it surely doesn’t make any sense as to why the identity of the person who transmitted the fax to Surrick is missing. Can you explain that?
I’m sure there are stricter rules on fascimile correspondence regarding judicial matters but this is the FTC’s law.
The Act and the rules of the Federal Trade Commission require that any message sent to a fax machine must clearly mark on the first page or on each page of the message:
bullet the date and time the transmission is sent;
bullet the identity of the sender; and
bullet the telephone number of the sender or of the sending fax machine.
All fax machines manufactured on or after December 20, 1992 and all facsimile modem boards manufactured on or after December 13, 1995 must have the capability to clearly mark such identifying information on the first page or on each page of the transmission.
“... underwent excessing vetting ...”
WHAH!!! When did that happen ..??
You got me there — I don’t know nuthin about the rules of the Federal Trade Commission.
“And how the moose got into my pajamas I’ll never know!” PS...The Shadow has no idea!
The bottom line is someone didn’t want their identity on the fax to Surrick and probably didn’t realize the date and time stamp would print out (or that anyone would care or notice). This doesn’t pass the smell test. In any case, I would guess through FOIA, we can get this information of who was on the other end. You’d be crazy to not want to know who corresponded with Surrick here. It looks like someone sent this at 4:55 CST, which would put them in say...Chicago. Did Obambi have any Chicago attorneys working this case?
That’s where you’re losing me FRiend.
Why wouldn’t Obama have lawyers working on this case.
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.