🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8v3mj0$3nc@shell3.shore.net>,
Charles M. Kozierok <ixlu@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>In article <8v3lv8$nra$0@pita.alt.net>,
>Karl Denninger <karl@FS.Denninger.net> wrote:
>} In article <8v3c0r$iri@shell3.shore.net>,
>} Charles M. Kozierok <ixlu@PCGuide.com> wrote:
>} >} You misread the
>} >} statute. Executed and MAILED by November 7th MEANS postmarked sir. No
>} >} LOOPHOLES to allow Democrats a special second effort to CHANGE the vote!
>} >
>} >"(c)  With respect to marked ballots mailed by absent qualified
>} >   electors overseas, only those ballots mailed with an APO, FPO, or
>} >   foreign postmark shall be considered valid."
>} >
>} >That is the only place in the entire chapter covering absentee 
>} >ballots where the word "postmark" appears in any form.
>}
>} Perhaps you need to look at the general body of law, contracts, and
>} execution of documents.
>
>The claim was that I had "misread the statute". I *quoted* the statute.
>
>The other issues you mention may in fact mean that the postmark does
>have to be by the 7th. Which is why I wrote this in the prior message:
>"That may be so due to case law, but it is *not* specified in the
>statute, unless it is mentioned for some strange reason in a section
>different from where the rest of the laws on absentee balloting are."
>
>} This is well-established in the law.
>
>In your opinion.
>
>What is "well-established" to me, Mr. Denninger, is that you have a
>desire to quote statute when it supports your position and ignore it
>when it does not. Worse, you have exhibited a pattern whereby you make
>lots of grandiose claims regarding the law while refusing to provide
>any references or justification for your statements.  While your
>opinions are confidently stated, they have thus far been supported with
>nothing.  Unless you are willing to show some evidence, I see no reason
>why your generalizations should over-rule the plain black and white of
>the statute.
>
>Again, if you want to cite case law, or provide any sort of *objective*
>substantiation for your claims, I'd be interested in reading it.

Already done.

Or doesn't the Leon County court's ruling this morning count as "case law"?

It seems to me that you, and a bunch of other Democrat apologists, love to
run to the claim of "case law" when it suits you, and ignore the VAST body
of the same law when it does not.

Postmark dates and their controlling legal authority (despite what Al Gore
would like and claim) are well-established doctrines that stretch back more
than a century.   They are the reason that the IRS does not accept returns 
as "timely" if the postmark is late, despite your strident claim to the
contrary and your swearing on a stack of bibles 15 feet high that you
really did execute the return on time.

Likewise, despite YOUR interpretation of Florida law, the Judge in Leon
County has now ruled that Kathleen Harris was CORRECT, and that HER
interpretation of the law (which happens to match with mine, having 
read said body of law) was, in fact, what the statute actually means.

SHALL means SHALL.  Sorry, but this "what does 'is' mean" nonsense is old.
Slick Willie got away with it, but Gore and his lapdogs are not going to.

Attempting to overturn that interpretation is a "Hail Mary" pass on the 
part of the Gore campaign, and I believe it will fail.  I further believe
that the State Supreme Court will refuse to issue an injunction prior to
midnight tonight; if they were going to get involved in this they would
have done so yesterday, when the clear opportunity presented itself.

Contrary to what Gore's sock-puppets said at that time, anyone with even a
modicum of experience in reading appealate decisions instantly recognized
that the State Supreme Court order of yesterday was a flat ducking of the
issue rather than a ruling on it.  

DuBois spin on that, in particular, was disgusting.  He's a guy who KNOWS 
he was lying about what that order meant and yet he was willing to go on
national television and spout off about how it was a "victory" for his side.

Hogwash.  

It was no such thing, and the ruling this morning is proof thereof.

The entire Democratic party is risking consignment into the dustbin of
history by this nonsense.  The Florida courts have reufsed to intervene
in the way that Gore wants, and its time for him to back down.  He is,
unfortunately, past the point of being able to save face or do so 
gracefully - but continuing the war at this point will call the entire 
PARTY into question as a legitimate political entity in the United States.

Florida is doing to declare a winner about 12 hours from now.

The game is over, Mr. Gore.

Your options now rest between well-done and crispy.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@denninger.net) Internet Consultant & Kids Rights Activist
http://www.denninger.net	Cost-effective Consulting Solutions
http://childrens-justice.org	SIGN THE UPREPA PETITION AT THIS SITE TODAY!