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 (283)	12/7/2000 8:32:47 AM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 644

According to Boies, the way to overturn Sauls is on the basis of the fact that Sauls did not examine the evidences (the ballots), and supposedly, that overturn will be on a matter of law (thus not overturning on findings of facts?). Listening to the Seminole case yesterday, I got the impression that they spent quite sometime to determine if the misdeed of the Republican would have impact the final result of the election. I did not realize that laws need to be obeyed only if the results of breaking the law would impact in one way or another future macro events, that is a strange principle, embezzlers of funds from a company which is on the verge of Ch 7 or 11 can get free reign since whether they did or did not embezzle the company would have gone under anyway. Is that a constructive interpretation of that thesis? Zeev

To: Carl R. who wrote (283)	12/7/2000 1:09:58 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 644

Carl, <<1. Bush loses in Federal Court to have manual recounts thrown out. Note that 3 Republicans voted for the Gore position. Things like that, and Democrat Sanders Saul's decision for Bush are restoring my faith in the independence of Judges a bit.>> A minor correction: my understanding is that Judge Saul used to be a Democrat, but like many Dixiecrats, changed his affiliation to Republican at some point in the past 10 years or so. I just heard this morning that a Democrat running for a local office in Seminole testified that he had asked the election board supervisor if he could either correct ballot applications from his supporters or take them back to the people to correct, but was told by the same woman who allowed the Republicans to correct their applications that once the applications were in her office, they couldn't be changed. The only question in this case, to my mind, is whether there is an adequate remedy for the obviously illegal acts here. Throwing out the ballots of voters who themselves did nothing wrong other than not realizing that they were submitting incomplete applications (couldn't they read the directions, as the Republicans say of the Palm Beach voters who unwittingly voted for Buchanan or who voted for two candidates? but nevermind) seems like strong medicine. But not counting--not even looking at--the machine rejected Dade County votes is also clearly wrong. Sam