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: John F. Dowd who wrote (118184)	11/17/2000 1:12:56 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

RE: "Not required. Judge Lewis agrees with me. JFD " Actually, you're wrong. Judge Lewis disagrees with 'you'. To remind you, his ruling on Wed was to agree to statute 102.661 5(C). This has not changed and is consistent with my post. However, his ruling today said that Harris doesn't have to "include the totals" even though statute 102.661 5(c) states the ballots "shall be manually counted", so today's ruling is about what they do with the count, which is a different matter. Here's a quote from CNN on the Judge, "He noted that state law gives Harris "broad discretionary authority" to accept or reject vote totals filed after the deadline." Of course, logically, one has to ask why one statute of the law requires a manual recount (which is the law which Gore was using and the Judge agreed to and continues to agree to), while another statute of the law works against this law and allows the SOS to disregard the results of the manual counts (which is the law Bush was using and the Judge also agreed to). Basically, the Judge is saying "yes, both statutes are true." Amy J