Surrick Sent a Fax of a Fax to Berg's Office

[Roadwarrior]

Surrick's order was a Fax of a Fax.

The order was faxed To Surrick's office .....Then it was signed
and then faxed to Berg's office.

There is a Time Stamp at the Top 6:09  of Page 1 from Surrick's's office

There is a Time Stamp  4:55 at the Bottom from the  Fax Machine
that was used to Fax the order to Surrick

Is this a common practice ?   Or is it unusual.

I assume this is standard practice but allegations are being made
that something sinister is happening.

I assume the order written by Surrick's law clerk then faxed to him.
or else the order written by Surrick at home,  faxed to his office
then re-faxed.

http://james4america.wordpress.com/

[~Hanna~]

huh?

 

[Roadwarrior]

This viral rumor is addressed.

------------------------------------
http://www.americasright.com/
-----------------------------------

Sunday, October 26, 2008
Addressing the Rumors Surrounding Surrick's Decision
 
The newest thing, I see, is that the Hon. R. Barclay Surrick somehow was implored to decide as he did in the Berg v. Obama suit, that the memorandum and order was somehow thrust upon him by a former law clerk who now works closely with Michelle Obama.
Fax transmissions shown on the readily-available document have been called into question, as though the judge was sent the decision he was supposed to render.

People, come on.

The standing doctrine is crystal clear. The law, in this case, was on the side of Barack Obama and the DNC when it came down to the procedural details. To prevail, Berg needed Judge Surrick to play the role of judicial activist and expand the law as it stands today.

Don't get me wrong -- I was hoping that Surrick would do just that. I find it sad, and somewhat contrary to what I feel our founders would have liked, that individuals cannot ask that a presidential candidate who has failed to be forthcoming in so many different ways to come clean about his questionable past. Still, as disappointing as Surrick's decision was, it was far from unexpected.

It would not take a conspiracy to force a judge to come down on the right side of the law as it currently stands. He did what was expected of him. I understand the will to look for answers, but if there is an answer that we should all be looing for, it should be to the question of standing and, more specifically, injury. Hopefully, as Berg proceeds through the court system, he will frame his questions in a way which will nudge the courts into providing a true, specific, definitive test for injury-in-fact, the first of three elements in the standing doctrine. Right now, while a judge may apply the plaintiff's allegations to a sliding scale of remoteness and speculation in order to decide whether a plaintiff has been injured in a specific and particularized manner, it would be nice to see a definitive test for the injury requirement come of all of this.

In the meantime, we are nine short days away from the most important election of this generation, a contest between two men with stark differences in policies, ideology and aspirations. We may not be able to affect the thinking of a political candidate or a district court judge -- so let's take responsibility for our own actions and do the right thing in the voting booth.