References to documents and reports

Current Complaint by ACLU v. Dept. of Defense, with full history of this issue.  Paragraph 31, describes the agreement among all parties including the Soledad Cross Memorial Association to move the cross to the church down the hill, and create a new constitutionally acceptable symbol in its place.  This was confirmed to me by the CEO Bill Kellogg, that this decision taken shortly before it was submitted to the city council on July 20, 2004, was by a unanimous vote of the executive board.

Recent controlling decision by a three judge panel of the 9th circuit of 1/04/11.  That if not granted certiorari as of end of April 2012 will be subject to enforcement.  Not the similarity with their remedy with the agreement that had been reached among all parties in 2004, as referenced above.

Law, passed in July 2006,  that placed Memorial under the control of Department of Defense, with only maintenance by the SMMA.   Thus the continuation or removal of the cross is under the discretion of the Federal Executive branch and not local authorities. Here is the legislative history.   Here is the full text of the law, with a preface that is a narrative of the losing side in every appeals court decision.  

Union Tribune Article of June 10, 2005. Describes the lineup of those who want to pass a referendum that would negate a previous one earlier in the year that instructed the City Council to relocate the cross to a nearby church. Jim McCoy, lawyer for plaintiffs feel that it would be ruled unconstitutional so they did not fight this referendum.

Thomas More Legal Center Amicus Curae brief on 2006 case before ninth circuit


WorldNetDaily article describing the 9th circuit appeal of the decision against the ACLU and the Jewish War Veterans:

Joe Infranco is a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal group that filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Legion Department of California. He told WND that after 45 minutes of arguments in 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, it was difficult to tell which way the three-judge panel was leaning.

Joe Infranco, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, said "If the Supreme Court does not take the case, and they take very few, then the appellate decision stands,"   Asked whether the cross must come down if the Department of Defense does not win its case, Infranco said, "That's an excellent question. I overheard veterans at the argument today talking about civil disobedience if they're ordered to dismantle the cross." He continued, "This excites a lot of emotion among the veterans. Veterans groups in the country are outraged by this lawsuit."

Union Tribune Article on District Court Decision supporting Federal Takeover of site, July 30,2008-Decision based on broader ruling by Federal Constitution than California's.