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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Zeev's Turnips -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carl R. who wrote (94)	11/18/2000 1:57:22 PM
From: Bosco	Respond to of 644

<ot>Hi Carl - thanks for the opinion. I ve not read at great length FL state laws, much less a legal eagle <g>, so I don't know how contradictoriness in term of ballot submission and any amended return. I guess it depends on how the dems build their case for any amended result, since they did comply by submitting the [what they deem interim] results. I think you miss my point about the registration # situation. Obviously, the activist who has filled in the the # may subject to disciplinary action, but it is irrelevant as far as the lawsuit is concerned. Rather, at this time, the strongest argument for the reps for closure is "rule of law," or may I be able to say, "process as defined in FL statures." If it is illegal for the third party to fill in the registration # w/o an explicit consent by the voter, even though I ve no legal training, it seems to apply. Your hypothetical case about the activist providing assistance to voters may be different. I mean, I'd think vision impaired voters may require assistance at the polling station or with their absentee ballot. However, their ballot is a 100% theirs. Not so with this registration # situation, if one is to be consistent in one's interpretation of the present dems action. One cannot have two set of interpretations, even though there are two set of action. Personally, I am not a procedural type, so I think winning or losing by technicality is problematic. Maybe I am a John Rawl kind of romantic :), but if one insists on the use of technicality, one cannot reject what one dishes out. What do you think? best, Bosco

To: Carl R. who wrote (94)	11/18/2000 2:24:10 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

oops, I forgot to respond to your postmark comment. I agree that they should be included, even if the postmark was missing, so long as they were received in a reasonable time frame [which may or may not coincide with the deadline.] However, again, this really touches the core of my concern, should we stick to the letter of the law or spirit of the law? Obviously, there will be a great deal of debate about the two. However, if one selectively applies one or the other on different occasions depending on the advantage of such application, then we will have a major contradiction! Personally, I prefer the spirit of the law to the letter of the law, but I suppose it is too arbitrary to some people :) best, Bosco