[Regulator]

So you missed the point. You claimed that "no one" had standing. But the Judge in one of Keyes cases would not throw out the case on that basis...which is the same as acknowledging that he did have standing. Get the point now?

The fact that he was a minority party candidate doesn't minimize the claim. On the contrary, it would be an even more significant reason for a candidate to seek relief in the courts.

[Mr Rogers]

“But the Judge in one of Keyes cases would not throw out the case on that basis...which is the same as acknowledging that he did have standing. Get the point now?”

The judge specifically REFUSED to rule he had standing. Or that he did not. The judge DID NOT MAKE A RULING on his ‘standing’.

Get the point now?