Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

When they refuse to supply oath info...

Expand Messages
  • Michael Noonan
    ... You may be trying to make a point here, but I fail to see it. The above case is all about race and libel with no reference to oaths. I point this out
    Message 1 of 2 , Feb 28, 2007
      --- Legalbear <bear@...> wrote:

      > "public men, are, as it were, public property," and
      > "discussion cannot be
      > denied and the right, as well as the duty, of
      > criticism must not be
      > stifled." Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U.S. 250,
      > 263-264, and n. 18
      >

      You may be trying to make a point here, but I fail to
      see it.

      The above case is all about race and libel with no
      reference to oaths. I point this out because case
      cite references using, one or two sentences, are often
      taken out of context.

      Am I missing something?

      Moderator/Bear: Yes you are. I made a comment to go with this. Did you not see it? The point is, if they work for the government they subject their actions, including the validity of their oaths, to scrutiny; they become "public property." Considering this, it is improper for the custodian of the oath to claim that the oath is not accessible to the public.

      Regards,

      mn



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
      It's here! Your new message!
      Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
      http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.