Jim-

I absolutely agree that knowing the facts of the matter affects the analysis. I'm quite curious to know the specifics of what he passed out and what was opposed and why. I'm going only on the media reports at this point. But I wondered if there were any thoughts from those on the list about the legal questions involved. Somehow it ended up with the thread having to do with facial jewelry.

Ed Brayton

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/6/2004 9:15:52 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But frankly, I'm more interested in the legal arguments.

Ed Brayton
Oh, I am too.  I am sure you agree that knowing the facts of the matter may affect the analysis to be applied and therefore the likely outcomes.
 
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ

_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to