See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Judge Surrick “Received” the Decision He Issued
Source:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P2ak2vb2Zv0/SQO8H8zxyeI/AAAAAAAAA_
URL Source: http://james4america.wordpress.com/
Published: Oct 26, 2008
Author: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P2ak2vb2Zv0/SQ
Post Date: 2008-10-26 00:58:20 by freepatriot32
Ping List: *libertarians* Subscribe to *libertarians*
Keywords: Judge Surrick, berg, obomba
Views: 233
Comments: 5
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. 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. 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? (2) Does this explain the comments from the Obama camp all through Friday the 24th that ALL Obstacles to the White House had been overcome, and “they now had a clear path.”
![http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P2ak2vb2Zv0/SQO8H8zxyeI/AAAAAAAAA_k/7aaxozQFgDE/s1600-h/Obama,_Surrick’s_102008_Ruling[1]+(2).jpg](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_P2ak2vb2Zv0/SQO8H8zxyeI/AAAAAAAAA_k/7aaxozQFgDE/s1600-h/Obama,_Surrick’s_102008_Ruling[1]+(2).jpg){kind=link}
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, *Humor-Weird News* (#0)
ping
http://s5.gladiatus.us/game/c.php?uid=77290 They have a clear path of tyranny.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition "Corporation: An entity created for the legal protection of its human parasites, whose sole purpose is profit and self-perpetuation." © IndieTx America reminds me so much of a battered spouse. Unless survival instincts prevail and the abuser is tied up in the sheets and stabbed to death, the beatings will continue.
There is no honor in bending one's knee to the banking elites that are robbing the children you claim to love of their future. Soon they'll convince those very same children that you deserve to be eliminated ... and they may be right.
ping
http://s5.gladiatus.us/game/c.php?uid=77290 Sounds like a plan to me.
click the pic
#2. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of its very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#3. To: freepatriot32 (#0)
#4. To: All, *Jack-Booted Thugs* (#0)
click the pic
#5. To: noone222 (#3)
Unless survival instincts prevail and the abuser is tied up in the sheets and stabbed to death, the beatings will continue.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest