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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (44326)	12/6/2000 9:59:20 AM
From: PMG	Respond to of 436258

Ok, both sent out pre-filled application documents to their database. Must it be the voter in person who has to apply for the ballot? I would assume this if these voters sent their applications directly to the election office. In this case any interference in behind should invalidate the application document. Sending application forms to the potential voters can be viewed as a service. Altering the actual applications is different because a) the application was already delivered b) the helpers who completed them were not formally authorized by applicants ( c) the authority must have had notified all senders of invalid applications (whatever missing on them) the give every single person a chance to re-apply This would qualify for fraud then, if the ballot application can be viewed as a formal document. In contrast, sending pre-printed application forms, that can by the applicants signature TURNED into a formal document , can be looked upon as advertising for application. If so, the fact that the field for the reg# was missing is just a shortcoming in the advertising campaign. In contrast, the completition of these applications from a third party after they were signed and submitted is fraud. Normally it does not count in these cases whether the unbacked changes in the document lie in the intention of the issuant of the document. Judge Saul said in his case there were no signs of fraud. If the court looks more on such formal issues than on intention and "higher justice" there might be a strong case here.