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.

Biotech / Medical : Biotech Valuation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Biomaven who wrote (2257)	12/9/2000 10:23:19 AM
From: jayhawk969	Respond to of 52153

Peter, Nice analysis. Appreciate the probability projections. With the view of this mornings action, I would lower the probability of a successful recount. What has happened to the non-allowed military votes that were not postmarked? J.D.

To: Biomaven who wrote (2257)	12/9/2000 10:52:30 AM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52153

Hi Peter, After reading the Florida Supreme Court decision I am left with these concerns: - Due process must include as parties those who must respond to the courts judgment. How can the Supreme court order a recount in all counties when over 60 county canvassing boards were not even parties to the case? - Gore failed to perfect the contest. By ordering all counties to count of the under-count, the court has confirmed Judge Sauls position that contest action MUST join all counties as necessary parties. The court by doing this is trying to correct the proceedural failure of Gore lawyers to request recounts in all counties. Gore was "unsuccessful" statewide. He was not unsuccessful in Dade and Palm Beach. Gore's lawyers by only selecting democrat counties only for contest failed to perfect the contest. - The court by adding votes to the Gore count has demonstrated that they are willing to change the vote totals without completing a count of all counties (which will not be done by the 12th). Their order that all counties be counted for under-vote is a pretext. The court realizes that only counting selected counties is unsupportable. If this was not a pretextual response (I believe it is) then they would add votes to the totals only after "all under-votes in all counties" were tallied. That would be consistent with a contest which requires all counties to participate. This situation has more twists and turns than anything I have ever seen. The battle shows just how much energy and money both sides are willing to put into winning the Presidency. We do have a great nation. Can someone sue a legislature to enjoin it from acting? To a lawyer this stuff is addictive. ij

To: Biomaven who wrote (2257)	12/9/2000 12:41:14 PM
From: scott_jiminez	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 52153

With Kennedy turning down Bush's request for a stay, it would appear we can now expect recount results showing a Gore victory. I guess that means finality and we all can return to watching Ernie Kovacs reruns. Grin/frown. An op-ed article in NYT today appears to show that the two rulings regarding the absentee ballots impinged upon US law in the EXACT same manner the Supreme Court expressed grave concerns about earlier in the week. If these cases are appealed (all the way up), the Court may have to vacate (or more) those decisions to be internally consistent.