SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Diana who wrote (598)12/6/2000 9:33:49 AM
From: Original Mad Dog  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14610
 
This was a reference that couldn't be checked. It was not published, it was just an order from a lower court (which are generally not published, mostly only appellate opinions are published and not even all of those). In rare cases it does happen where you get an affidavit from those involved as to what the court did, though courts don't like that because they have no way of checking it.... the other side can check it by deposing everyone involved, but here there was no time or opportunity, and the media and public scrutiny brought the story out pretty quickly anyway.....



To: Diana who wrote (598)12/6/2000 9:59:01 AM
From: mph  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 14610
 
No, they are not.
That is why this is so peculiar.
They have a battery of lawyer/clerks who do the
scutt work for them.

I think the problem had more to do with the way the trial court implemented the Illinois Supreme Court decision. The affidavit Boies submitted suggested that dimpled ballots were counted by the court, when they were not. The Supreme Court had given the directive to count ballots only if voter intent could really be ascertained.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News