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 : Rande Is . . . HOME -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (41903)	11/22/2000 6:04:00 AM
From: GREENLAW4-7	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57584

NASD and DOW must accept now the fact Gore may indeed become our next prsident. As sad, and as frustrating that may be it must be accepted. We all know Pres Gore will get NOTHING DONE with the current congress and what this country has been put through. Looking at the NASD its oversold by 400-500 points on my model. I watched those futures takeoff last night and at one point before 9:45 pm NASD future were up 40, and DOW up 6. I believe this market wants to go higher and perhaps today is that day. I see too many VERY GOOD stocks with their legs cut off and for NO REASON other then longs selling over the last 2 weeks and shorts jumping on the band wagon. Greeny and this electuon debacle is KILLING the world financial markets. I point directly to ASIA and Japen because we are now at the level in 98 that greeny deciced to lower rates for 3 distinct reasons. 1. Russia market collapsed, 2. Japan Nikkee was at 14K, and 3. a major hedge fund made the wrong call. The big difference with today then back in 98 is the us economy is actually growing at a slower pace 2.5 compared to 4.5 in Nov. 98. In conclusion I do see a reverse sometime today in the NASD and perhaps the markets will accept the fact Gore and his pack of lawyers ARE IN THE PROCESS OF STEALING THE ELECTION!! EOM

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (41903)	11/22/2000 9:03:22 AM
From: duke-nukem	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

OT Not to put a damper on the "it will be over by Monday" thought, following is an article about a federal decision that can be used as a precedent in Florida( 11th Circuit): ================== The Other Roe How the GOP may appeal a Florida court loss. By John Hood, president of the John Locke Foundation & a political commentator in North Carolina During oral argument before the Florida supreme court about the election-certification deadline and the propriety of hand counting, GOP attorney Michael Carvin was pressed hard by two justices on the question of selective hand counts in Democratic counties. The remedy, they suggested to Carvin, for selective hand counting would seem to be a statewide count, which Bush could have initiated. "Was there something that prevented your client from requesting recounts in the other counties?" they asked. For many Republican observers worried about the process unfolding in Florida, this question has been on their minds, too. Never mind that, according to some Bush operatives, recounts even in Republican-leaning counties might net more Gore votes (based on which precincts had more "over-voted" or "under-voted" ballots). To outsiders, the notion that the Bush campaign could decline to request hand recounts across the state and then claim unfairness in the selective counties seemed questionable, at best. But Carvin's answer to the Florida justices offers insight into what the campaign may really be up to. He warned that "federal law will not allow this court or the Florida legislature to change the rules of the election after the election has taken place." Given that Bush has already failed in federal district and appeals court to get the hand recounts halted, most analysts have ignored this statement. Others have noted that federal courts usually defer to state courts on election matters. I'm betting, however, that the Bush forces have carefully studied a five-year-old decision by the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which meets in Atlanta and governs Florida. It's called Roe v. State of Alabama, and may end up rivaling another Roe case in notoriety. Here's what happened in a nutshell. Two 1994 statewide elections in Alabama — for state treasurer and, ironically, for chief justice of the state supreme court — were extremely close. In deciding the winners, the issue of how to handle absentee ballots arose. Alabama had a statute on the books that allowed absentee ballots to be included in certified election results only if they were enclosed in an envelope bearing the signatures of 1) the voter and 2) either a notary public or two witnesses. But Democratic election officials attempted to count absentee ballots in the 1994 election that had only the signature of the voter on the envelope. It appeared likely that counting these ballots would confirm a small lead by the Democratic candidate for treasurer and possibly overturn a Republican victory in the chief justice race. Democrats prevailed in the state courts. A state trial court ordered the contested absentee ballots to be counted. But plaintiff Larry Roe, representing voters in the November election, went to federal district court arguing that counting the questionable ballots would dilute the legitimate votes cast in the election and thus would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In early December, the district court granted a preliminary injunction and ordered Alabama Secretary of State James Bennett to certify the results without the contested ballots. He and a group of voters who had cast the contested ballots then appealed to the 11th Circuit in Atlanta. The appeals court upheld the injunction, but ordered the Alabama supreme court to determine whether state law permitted or excluded the questionable ballots. Not surprisingly, the high court in Alabama — which, like the Florida court, had a reputation for liberalism — decided that it was okay to count the ballots despite their lack of appropriate signatures. The decision was based in part on the argument that some of Alabama's 67 counties had counted such ballots in the past. Fortunately, the 11th Circuit didn't accept the state court's response at face value, and ordered the federal district court to determine the facts. After a three-day trial and the testimony of 48 witnesses, the district court ruled that in all but one county, the practice prior to the November 1994 election had been uniformly to exclude the ballots. The Alabama supreme court's finding to the contrary had been based on affidavits from local elections officials who subsequently offered very different testimony in federal court. In October 1995, the 11th Circuit upheld the district court's ruling and ordered the contested ballots excluded from the totals (except for those in the one county that had previously counted them, but it didn't change the result). Relevant to the presidential tussle in Florida is the clear lesson of the Roe case: that states cannot effectively change the process of counting votes after an election, which the state courts in Alabama tried to do. Moreover, the 11th Circuit specifically rejected the claim that Alabama's vote-counting procedures did not invite federal scrutiny because they didn't involve federal constitutional issues. The appeals court, which would have jurisdiction in Florida litigation, recognized that Fourteenth Amendment issues were present when a state attempted to change retroactively its electoral process. Raleigh attorney Thomas Farr, who is general counsel of the North Carolina Republican party and who told me about the Roe case, argues that "allowing only a few counties to count ballots based upon the subjective opinion of partisan election officials, operating without guidelines, effectively changes the rules for counting ballots after an election in violation of Roe v. Alabama." If events in Florida confer enough votes on Gore to give him the election, expect to see litigation based on the other Roe.

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (41903)	11/22/2000 9:11:29 AM
From: maverick61	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57584

OT > Jon - well, the markets, and specifically, the futures are speaking, and this decision was certainly bad news for the market. Additionally, there is no way this will be over by Monday. You better do a bit more research - we have seen nothing yet. This won't be decided until December 18th at the earliest, possibly even longer. The Democrats have spent the last 2 plus weeks doing whatever they can to steal the election - Now that they have their target of how many votes they need, have their Kangaroo court ruling, and intend to get partisan loyalists in charge of the election results in 3 counties to change the counting methodology to allow them to hit their target, the fight has just begun. unlike in the past, I fully expect the republicans to strike back with all guns a blazing, to prevent this theft of the election. Even if you disagree with my views of who should be the righful winner, I can't believe you expect this to be over by monday. Expect some combination of the following: 1. Contesting the election results once finalized in FLorida because of changing the rules in the middle of the game, as well as alleged fraud in the manual recounts 2. The re-introduction of the Federal Appeals Court, and possibly US Supreme Court action on violation of Equal Protection Act - due to biased and selective recounts 3. A Federal court case alleging violation of Federal rules prohibiting changes in election laws up to 6 days before and anytime after the election. you haven't heard much about this one - but this is in essence what the Florida kangaroo Court did. Now that they have, this case has lots of merit. (see Roe vs. Alabama) 4. possible legislative action by the Florida Congress on a seperation of powers basis to rebuke the Florida court from legislating from the bench 5. possible rejection of electoral college votes by the US congress. While I am not saying all of these will occur, or that I necessarily agree with all, I am saying the ball is now in the Republican's court - and unlike in the past when they have backed off, I fully expect an all out fight on any or all of these grounds. So, don't delude yourself - Monday is no where close to an end BTW - there is no difference between one who gives money to a candidate and one who campaigns for a candidate. they both are partisan, and both have a conflict of interest