The flight attendant speech: Flipping the card seat insert: masks above compartment fall down, seats

float?, compressorized? doors
four to left and right, exit in an orderly fashion, forty thousand feet … F15s F16s? Thank you.

United Airlines

Undeliverable: RE: Dimpled Chad Standard/Pullen v. Mulligan 561 N .E.2d 585 1
1 recipients CC: recipientsYou More BCC: recipientsYou Hide Details FROM:

System Administrator

TO:

mrhilbert1@yahoo.com

Message flagged Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:28 AM

Message body

From: Mark Hilbert <mrhilbert1@yahoo.com> To: texas@georgewbush.com Sent: Tuesday, November 28, 2000 9:32 AM Subject: RE: Dimpled Chad Standard/Pullen v. Mulligan 561 N.E.2d 585 To Whom It May Concern: Do we not have a standard by which to judge the dimpled chad? I think we do. With appropriate due caution, I submit my analysis of the dimpled chad issue. I will set forth my reasoning. What standard should be used to judge the dimpled chad? Dimple(d) by definition means: "A slight depression in a surface." Thus, a given voter using the stylus and making only an indentation on the ballot did not dislodge any of the threads from the chad on the ballot. As such, a dimpled chad should not be one which is dislodged from the ballot. In full, none of the threads from the chad should be dislodged in any manner. The Florida Supreme Court (FL SC) cited the following language from the Pullen case: "Our courts have repeatedly held that, where the intention

of the voter 'can be ascertained with reasonable certainty from his ballot,' that intention will be given effect even though the ballot is not strictly in conformity with the law." "To invalidate a ballot 'which clearly reflects the voter's intent,' simply because the machine

cannot read it" . . . "These voters should not be disfranchised where their intent may be ascertained with 'reasonable certainty,' simply because the chad they punched did not 'completely dislodge' from the ballot." Thus, one might argue, that, in Pullen, the Illinois Supreme Court (IL SC) defines the 'reasonable certainty' test in the following manner. The IL SC states that the voter's intent may be clearly ascertained with reasonable certainty where "the chad they punched did not 'completely dislodge' from the ballot." As such, I submit, that the FL SC has established and determined that "did not completely dislodge" is the standard by which one judges whether a voter's intent can be clearly ascertained with reasonable certainty. In addition, one must define completely. It is accepted in the standard lexicon that completely means entirely. Therefore, again, one can reasonably conclude that at least one thread must be dislodged from the chad in order to initiate an inquiry into whether one can clearly ascertain a voter's intent with reasonable certainty. Thus, considering the FL SC's opinion, the dimpled chad is irrelevant and cannot be considered. On a dimpled chad, none of the threads has been dislodged, thereby precluding any inquiry into the nature of the voter's intent. Further, a dimpled chad cannot fall under an analysis which addresses not only a "completely dislodged"/removed standard, but also even a "partially" dislodged/removed standard; the chad has not been removed in anysense of the word, i.e., not one thread has been

dislodged from the chad. In addition, in Pullen, the IL SC states that: "Having decided all of the issues raised by the parties, including the contention that PARTIALLY punctured ballots should have been inspected and counted where proper.....Many voters could be disfranchised without their fault if, for example, ballots with only PERFORATIONS on the chad could not be regarded as indicating the voter's intent." Again, the lowest threshold established by the IL SC considers only a "partially punctured" and/or "perforated" standard. Perforate is defined as follows: "To pierce, punch, or bore a hole or holes in; penetrate." Considering the lowest threshold standard(s) not only established by the IL SC, but also adopted by the FL SC, the chad must have at least one thread dislodged in order to initiate an inquiry into whether one can clearly ascertain a voter's intent with reasonable certainty. A dimpled chad meets a lower threshold/standard than that established by the IL SC, and, thus, by reasonable inference the threshold/standard established by the FL SC. I submit this brief analysis in regard to this issue and only this issue. Respectfully submitted, Mark Hilbert Frånvaro, autosvar: MSEXCH:MSExchangeIS:BUSH:APOLLO Re: Fw: Undeliverable: RE: Dimpled Chad Standard/Pullen v. Mulligan 561 N .E.2d 585
1 recipients CC: recipientsYou More BCC: recipientsYou Hide Details FROM:

Barbro Svensson

TO:

Mark Hilbert

Message flagged Saturday, January 3, 2009 10:44 AM

Message body
I will be back in the office on January 7th and will then be able to read your message. Season's Greetings, Barbro Svensson

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful