<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This goes here this goes there and this . . .</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:03:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3756</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3756</guid>
		<description>
  Someone else claimed this earlier, in a confused way on this NG. &#160;I agree it &lt;br /&gt; gives their conduct a different spin. &#160;Sloppy on Repugnicans part though. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -&lt;/p&gt;&gt; P.S. One interesting fact - the Republicans were allowed to correct &lt;br /&gt; &gt; the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed &lt;br /&gt; &gt; ballot request form with errors. &#160;The Dems also had such a form, but &lt;br /&gt; &gt; it didn&#039;t have the errors. &#160;This doesn&#039;t affect whether the Reps &lt;br /&gt; &gt; violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less &lt;br /&gt; &gt; sinister. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County &lt;br /&gt; &gt; Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), &quot;Final Order&quot;, also &lt;br /&gt; &gt; under 8 Dec 2000. &#160;A similar opinion. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Someone else claimed this earlier, in a confused way on this NG. &nbsp;I agree it <br /> gives their conduct a different spin. &nbsp;Sloppy on Repugnicans part though. <br /> 
<p>- Hide quoted text &#8212; Show quoted text -</p>
<p>&gt; P.S. One interesting fact &#8211; the Republicans were allowed to correct <br /> &gt; the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed <br /> &gt; ballot request form with errors. &nbsp;The Dems also had such a form, but <br /> &gt; it didn&#8217;t have the errors. &nbsp;This doesn&#8217;t affect whether the Reps <br /> &gt; violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less <br /> &gt; sinister. <br /> 
<p>&gt; Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County <br /> &gt; Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), &quot;Final Order&quot;, also <br /> &gt; under 8 Dec 2000. &nbsp;A similar opinion. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3754</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3754</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;Jim Kingdon &lt;king...@panix.com&gt; wrote in article &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p4w3dfyoip2....@panix2.panix.com&gt;... &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &gt; &quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast &lt;br /&gt; in &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &gt; Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &gt; number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;? &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;&#160;&gt; The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (under &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &quot;Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)&quot;). &#160;The &quot;invalidate a &lt;br /&gt; &gt; proportion remedy&quot; is labeled &quot;three&quot; on page 10. &#160;The briefs on that &lt;br /&gt; &gt; page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots &lt;br /&gt; &gt; might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &quot;Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief&quot; although I couldn&#039;t &lt;br /&gt; &gt; quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue). &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;BTD: See how misleading the media can be! &lt;br /&gt; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; The court ruled against the plaintiff(s) &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim Kingdon &lt;king&#8230;@panix.com&gt; wrote in article <br /> &lt;p4w3dfyoip2&#8230;.@panix2.panix.com&gt;&#8230; <br /> &gt; &gt; &quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast <br /> in <br /> &gt; &gt; Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the <br /> &gt; &gt; number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;? </p>
<p>&nbsp;&gt; The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at  </p>
<p>&gt; <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html</a> (under <br /> &gt; &quot;Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)&quot;). &nbsp;The &quot;invalidate a <br /> &gt; proportion remedy&quot; is labeled &quot;three&quot; on page 10. &nbsp;The briefs on that <br /> &gt; page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots <br /> &gt; might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of <br /> &gt; &quot;Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief&quot; although I couldn&#8217;t <br /> &gt; quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue). </p>
<p>BTD: See how misleading the media can be! <br /> &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; The court ruled against the plaintiff(s) </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3755</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3755</guid>
		<description>
  (us.politics.elections added; I&#039;m dissecting court rulings in Martin &lt;br /&gt; County and Seminole County). &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; BTD: See how misleading the media can be! &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &#160; &#160;The court ruled against the plaintiff(s) &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;The Martin County ruling is at &lt;br /&gt; http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (go to &lt;br /&gt; case Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850), 8 Dec 2000 and &lt;br /&gt; look for &quot;Final Judgment for Defendants&quot;). &#160;The interesting thing is &lt;br /&gt; that it relies heavily on the &quot;will of the voters&quot; type reasoning that &lt;br /&gt; had been Florida election law but which was somewhat called into &lt;br /&gt; question (vis a vis a prez election) by the US Supremes just a few &lt;br /&gt; days ago. &#160;The Martin Country opinion doesn&#039;t address throwing out &lt;br /&gt; some vs. all ballots because they rule that throwing out ballots in &lt;br /&gt; general isn&#039;t called for in this kind of situation. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;P.S. One interesting fact - the Republicans were allowed to correct &lt;br /&gt; the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed &lt;br /&gt; ballot request form with errors. &#160;The Dems also had such a form, but &lt;br /&gt; it didn&#039;t have the errors. &#160;This doesn&#039;t affect whether the Reps &lt;br /&gt; violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less &lt;br /&gt; sinister. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County &lt;br /&gt; Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), &quot;Final Order&quot;, also &lt;br /&gt; under 8 Dec 2000. &#160;A similar opinion. &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(us.politics.elections added; I&#8217;m dissecting court rulings in Martin <br /> County and Seminole County). <br /> 
<p>&gt; BTD: See how misleading the media can be! <br /> &gt; &nbsp; &nbsp;The court ruled against the plaintiff(s) </p>
<p>The Martin County ruling is at <br /> <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html</a> (go to <br /> case Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850), 8 Dec 2000 and <br /> look for &quot;Final Judgment for Defendants&quot;). &nbsp;The interesting thing is <br /> that it relies heavily on the &quot;will of the voters&quot; type reasoning that <br /> had been Florida election law but which was somewhat called into <br /> question (vis a vis a prez election) by the US Supremes just a few <br /> days ago. &nbsp;The Martin Country opinion doesn&#8217;t address throwing out <br /> some vs. all ballots because they rule that throwing out ballots in <br /> general isn&#8217;t called for in this kind of situation.  </p>
<p>P.S. One interesting fact &#8211; the Republicans were allowed to correct <br /> the ballots because the Republican party had sent people a pre-printed <br /> ballot request form with errors. &nbsp;The Dems also had such a form, but <br /> it didn&#8217;t have the errors. &nbsp;This doesn&#8217;t affect whether the Reps <br /> violated the law, but it does make the whole thing seem somewhat less <br /> sinister.  </p>
<p>Or in Seminole Country, Jacobs v. Seminole County <br /> Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2816, 1D00-4686, and 1D00-4717), &quot;Final Order&quot;, also <br /> under 8 Dec 2000. &nbsp;A similar opinion. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3752</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3752</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;&quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in &lt;br /&gt; Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the &lt;br /&gt; number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;? &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Blazin&#039; Tommy D. &lt;td...@stny.rr.com&gt; wrote in article &lt;br /&gt; &lt;01c06141$727172e0$d8865f18@federalist&gt;... &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -&lt;/p&gt;&gt; Was this requested? &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; Jim Kingdon &lt;king...@panix.com&gt; wrote in article &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &lt;p4wbsumolnm....@panix2.panix.com&gt;... &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &gt; &gt; http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&#160; I&#039;d be &lt;br /&gt; &gt; &gt; rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in <br /> Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the <br /> number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;?  </p>
<p>Blazin&#8217; Tommy D. &lt;td&#8230;@stny.rr.com&gt; wrote in article <br /> &lt;01c06141$727172e0$d8865f18@federalist&gt;&#8230;  </p>
<p>- Hide quoted text &#8212; Show quoted text -</p>
<p>&gt; Was this requested? <br /> 
<p>&gt; Jim Kingdon &lt;king&#8230;@panix.com&gt; wrote in article <br /> &gt; &lt;p4wbsumolnm&#8230;.@panix2.panix.com&gt;&#8230; <br /> &gt; &gt; &gt; <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html</a>  </p>
<p>&nbsp; I&#8217;d be <br /> &gt; &gt; rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3753</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3753</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;&gt; &quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in &lt;br /&gt; &gt; Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the &lt;br /&gt; &gt; number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;? &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;Interesting. &#160;I failed to notice the latter remedy in the news &lt;br /&gt; coverage to date. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;NPR was saying there could be a decision at 2:15pm Eastern, 30 minutes &lt;br /&gt; from now as I write this. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at &lt;br /&gt; http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html (under &lt;br /&gt; &quot;Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)&quot;). &#160;The &quot;invalidate a &lt;br /&gt; proportion remedy&quot; is labeled &quot;three&quot; on page 10. &#160;The briefs on that &lt;br /&gt; page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots &lt;br /&gt; might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of &lt;br /&gt; &quot;Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief&quot; although I couldn&#039;t &lt;br /&gt; quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue). &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; &quot;The suit seeks to invalidate either all 15,000 absentee ballots cast in <br /> &gt; Seminole County, or a proportion of the spoiled ballots, based on the <br /> &gt; number of absentee votes that each party received&quot;? </p>
<p>Interesting. &nbsp;I failed to notice the latter remedy in the news <br /> coverage to date.  </p>
<p>NPR was saying there could be a decision at 2:15pm Eastern, 30 minutes <br /> from now as I write this.  </p>
<p>The Martin county complaint (dated 1 Dec 2000) is at <br /> <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/us/election/election2000.html</a> (under <br /> &quot;Taylor v. Martin County Canv. Bd. (CV-00-2850)&quot;). &nbsp;The &quot;invalidate a <br /> proportion remedy&quot; is labeled &quot;three&quot; on page 10. &nbsp;The briefs on that <br /> page go into more detail of the law and whether throwing out ballots <br /> might be justified as a remedy (see for example pages 3-5 of <br /> &quot;Defendant Martin County Canv. Bd. Trial Brief&quot; although I couldn&#8217;t <br /> quickly find a place where the briefs went into the proportion issue). </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3751</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3751</guid>
		<description>
  Was this requested? &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;Jim Kingdon &lt;king...@panix.com&gt; wrote in article &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p4wbsumolnm....@panix2.panix.com&gt;... &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -&lt;/p&gt;&gt; &gt; http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html &lt;br /&gt; &lt;p&gt;&gt; A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin &lt;br /&gt; &gt; counties. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&gt; Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I&#039;d be &lt;br /&gt; &gt; rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was this requested? <br /> 
<p>Jim Kingdon &lt;king&#8230;@panix.com&gt; wrote in article <br /> &lt;p4wbsumolnm&#8230;.@panix2.panix.com&gt;&#8230;  </p>
<p>- Hide quoted text &#8212; Show quoted text -</p>
<p>&gt; &gt; <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html</a> <br /> 
<p>&gt; A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin <br /> &gt; counties.  </p>
<p>&gt; Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I&#8217;d be <br /> &gt; rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this/comment-page-1#comment-3750</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:24:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.uspolitical.info/this-goes-here-this-goes-there-and-this#comment-3750</guid>
		<description>
  &lt;p&gt;&gt; http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html &lt;br /&gt; &lt;br /&gt;A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin &lt;br /&gt; counties. &lt;br /&gt; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I&#039;d be &lt;br /&gt; rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. &lt;br /&gt;
  
  &lt;/p&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&gt; <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html" rel="nofollow">http://news.findlaw.com/ap/a/p/1131/12-6-2000/20001206003051620.html</a> </p>
<p>A story about the absentee ballot controversy in Seminole and Martin <br /> counties.  </p>
<p>Seems like something was quite possibly rotten there, but I&#8217;d be <br /> rather surprised if the court threw out the ballots as a remedy. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

