You (as well as RAP, it seems) appear....

Re: Yet their privacy was violated -- brownhound
Posted by Loquitur , Fri, Dec 15, 2017, 14:02:51 Post ReplyTop of ThreadReviews by LoquiturFirst Amendment Message BoardMain BigDoggie.net site

to be experiencing some comprehension difficulties. RAP, commenting on your initial post (this thread), offered..."So much for 'private ballots' (no text)". I replied to THAT statement. My reply addressed...simply...what RAP had...stated.

As such, my reply addressed ONLY "private ballots" (i.e., NOT State laws...New York or any other...codifying and expanding upon any zone of privacy related to "private ballots"). IF the content of those ballots were not disclosed (which I have NOT seen reported) - remained inviolate - THEN their "private ballot" was NOT disturbed - "they" were merely "turned away at the polls"(apparently for failing rather rudimentary function). Hence, RAP's "observation" was a red herring.

Now, that New York Statute ? As I suggested - have at it "counselor" (self-anointed). I have no interest in joining your..."debate". So, expect to earn no fee, for representation in a matter not engaged. My point was made (initially). It is accurate (legally & grammatically), all "BUT if's" aside. L.


| Edit | Post Reply | Recommend | Alert Support Original Message Top of Thread Current page
Replies to this message