LAW OFFICES
MARK A. VENUTI
SUITE 100
3600 M STREET. N.W
WASHINGTON. D C. 20007

D.C & N Y BARS
(202) 965-9700
August 15, 1988

William and Ellen Thomas
Apartment 410
1440 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear William and Ellen:

I have been working on the Flannery camping case for appeal with Professor Wechsler.

Thomas and I discussed the use of the Free Exercise of Religion defense, which I oppose because it has been decided against you already and because other Supreme Court precedent makes it hopeless. Enclosed is the Lyng case for your review. We can talk about it some more in the next week or so.

I am in favor of stressing the religious nature of the vigil, which is in the record. The plan we have come up with thus far is to argue (1) as a matter of statutory interpretation, you were not camping, and (2) if you were camping under that regulation, you could not have known it from reading it and all the other attempts made to define it; thus it is unconstitutionally vague as applied to your vigil.

We only have two weeks to file this first brief so let me know what you think. I am trying to get to it with enough time so it can be reviewed by you in advance, but, at the least, I am trying to give you my ideas so you can comment even if you don't see the exact wording on paper in advance.

Also, enclosed is a declaration I put together from my notes; let me know if there is a problem with it or it needs clarification. Unless you are seeking damages, I don't know how you are going to escape the mootness problem.

Talk to you soon.

Sincerely,

/s/Mark A. Venuti

Mark A Venuti