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.

Politics : Why is Gore Trying to Steal the Presidency? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3108)	11/30/2000 3:51:10 PM
From: chomolungma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Christopher, No, read it again only conditions 3 and 4 are joined by an "or." Conditions 1 and 2 are both necessary.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3108)	11/30/2000 3:51:36 PM
From: Catfish	Respond to of 3887

Thompson Calls on Supremes to Nix Boies in Florida Thursday November 30, 2000; 11:16 AM ET The trial lawyer community, unwilling to offend the Democrats they depend on for so much business, has been largely silent on the ethical breaches of lead Gore attorney David Boies as the election crisis plays out in Florida. Not so NewsMax.com's Jack Thompson, an attorney who, unlike Boies, is licensed to practice in the Sunshine State. After filing a complaint Wednesday against Boies with several legal disciplinary committees in New York (the state where Boies is licensed to practice), Thompson is on the warpath again. Today he fired off this missive to the chief justice of the Florida Supreme Court: Dear Chief Justice Wells: As you know, New York attorney David Boies is not admitted to practice law in the State of Florida. He is doing so by special dispensation of this Court by means of his temporary pro hoc vice status. You must revoke that privilege. Why? On behalf of the Gore-Lieberman campaign, Mr. Boies put before you and the other six Justices an affidavit from a participant in Pullen v. Milligan, 561 NE2d 585 (Ill 1990), which has been proven false. Mr. Boies used that false affidavit to misrepresent to you all the ultimate resolution in Pullen. Additionally, aided by the false affidavit, Mr. Boies used dicta, or extraneous language, from the Pullen decision to make it appear as though "dimpled chads" were counted as votes, when in fact just the opposite was the result in Pullen. You cite prominently Pullen in your historic November 21 ruling. This ruling was relied upon by the Broward County canvassing board. You have been hoodwinked. The board was hoodwinked. America was hoodwinked. Let us be generous and assume Mr. Boies simply did not have the time or staff to research Pullen carefully. After all, his firm's web site (www.bsfllp.com) links to all the mainstream media's articles proving that he is the most brilliant lawyer in America, and surely such a lawyer was a victim in all this. A man of such reputation would not bend the truth for a client. Surely now, however, Mr. Boies knows the truth, now that the Chicago Tribune has proven that the affidavit upon which you relied is false and that the result in Pullen is the opposite of what Mr. Boies has told you. I have shared with Mr. Boies directly, in writing, his victim status in this regard, and I have pointed out to him his clear duty to come to you and admit the "mistake," upon which you all relied. Mr. Boies refuses to do so. Maybe his refusal is for lack of time. Mr. Boies was tied up in front of Leon County Circuit Court Judge Sauls insisting that the Judge sign an order on a ruling not yet rendered by Judge Sauls, so that Mr. Boies could appeal his non-decision to the Florida Supreme Court before there is even a hearing. Your Honor, I went to Vanderbilt Law School with Al Gore, and he dropped out before taking the mandatory third year course entitled "Legal Ethics," so he has an excuse for asking his lawyer to engage in the tactics that have made Mr. Boies a victim. But I would ask you to ask Mr. Boies what is his excuse for failing to admit to you all that you improperly relied upon Pullen. His mistake is no longer a mistake; it is now a calculation. He, by his knowing silence, has calculated that you seven Justices will not care that the most important judicial opinion of the year is based upon a lie. I respectfully ask the Florida Supreme Court to begin immediately, as you have the right to do, proceedings to revoke the pro hoc vice privilege of Mr. Boies to practice law without a license in our state, a state he has made the laughingstock of the world. In doing so, please afford Mr. Boies all the equal protection he has afforded the voters in our fair state who were foolish enough to live in Republican counties. By the way, today's NY Post reports that Mr. Boies is laboring under an ethics investigation in New York State, as he is presently accused of paying a fact witness to testify. You can read the story today at www.nypost.com/gossip/pagesix.htm on the Internet. A copy of the story is attached hereto. Please cleanse your ruling of its false foundation. Cleanse our state of Mr. Boies. Respectfully, Jack Thompson newsmax.com

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3108)	11/30/2000 4:08:20 PM
From: Ellen	Respond to of 3887

That answers my question to chomo in a later post. Thanks for clarification.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3108)	12/1/2000 12:04:11 AM
From: lml	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3887

Hi Chris: Just got back into town. Trying to catch up again with all the posts. . . as usual. Interesting developments yesterday and today, huh? In statutory construction, that means that if any one of the conditions is met, the ballot can be counted. It does not have to have two corners detached. Yes this is correct. And I went through this analysis in one of my previous and infamous posts to Ellen. In that post I made reference to the article Ellen was kind enough to provide me, then commented: 'The first paragraph makes reference to Tex. Elec. Code §127.130(d). See capitol.state.tx.us. Clearly the basic rule in TX is to require at least two corners of the chad as evidenced by §127.130(d)(1) and (2). The second paragraph makes reference to §127.130(d)(3) and (4) as well as §127.130(e), which includes BUT IS NOT EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED TO the dimpled chad. If you take a close look at §127.130(d)(3) you will notice the use of the word "and" joining the expression of "indentation" with the expression of "CLEARLY ascertainable." [Emphasis added.] In order to reconcile §127.130(d)(3) with the other parts of this code section, one CANNOT rely upon a dimpled chad ALONE as evidence of voter intent. There must be INDEPENDENT or SUPPLEMENTAL evidence of voter intent in ADDITION to the dimpled chad in for it to be accepted. Otherwise there would be no need for the word "and." . . . . EXTRINSIC evidence of voter intent as I originally postulated, and as reaffirmed by the Texas elections director quoted in the article. The EXTINSIC evidence the director cites by way of example is a "handwritten indication." See Message 14899662