Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Joe NYC who wrote (118064)	11/16/2000 6:24:09 AM
From: Amy J	Respond to of 186894

Hi Jozef, you should really read all the filings and Judge's text, so I don't have to explain it to you - I can't even post fast enough here to get done with yesterday's post, let alone today's new posts. (edit: sorry, that sounded grumpy?-I didn't mean to be). RE: "And if the law is ...contradictory, and SOS applies one side, and not the other contradicting it, what are the grounds to decide which part of the law is more important" She could have ruled without any conflict, as the Judge had hinted when he said he disagreed with her second position (which conflicted with a Statute). I personally think the non-conflict solution (i.e. not-conflicting with either Statutes) is: a) Deadline is firm - Tue 5 PM b) Allow for "late returns" so that the manual count can be finished (edit, but I concur with you that it would be fair if the entire State had a manual count) She said "yes" to a), but "no" to b). If she said, "yes" and "yes", I believe that would have obeyed both Statutes. Btw, I have to go, so I am explaining this very fast - hope it makes sense and has no errors,later, Amy J