SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : Compaq
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: PCSS who wrote (86596)11/10/2000 2:30:29 PM
From: Nouveau_Riche  Read Replies (1) of 97611
 
I understand your point but I think it is merely a strict interpretation of the law and does not take into account the intention of the law which is to prevent fraud.

In this case the district voters and both campaigns were represented in the acceptance of the ballot before the election and no objections were voiced. The ballot itself is understandable and not misleading and no one is accusing anyone of fraud. Therefore, I believe, that the intention of the law was preserved in this ballot and the process by which it was constructed and approved.

To cling to a strict interpretation of law, in my opinion, is self serving and ignores a basic fact that the ballot was approved by both parties and the district voters prior to the vote and in no way is misleading or fraudulent.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News