Posted on 10/26/2008 5:42:16 PM PDT by NoobRep
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.