If you would like to read the History of the Cross of the case decision, it can be found in: Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
[FROM COURT DOCUMENTS]D. The Mt. Soledad Cross
The Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad is subject to the same constitutional infirmities to which the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Helix is subject. Like its Mt. Helix counterpart, the Mt. Soledad cross is a powerful sectarian symbol, the religious effect of which is evidenced by the uses to which it has been put as the backdrop of Christian sectarian events, such as weddings, baptisms and Easter sunrise services. Its commanding presence and nightly illumination at the very summit of Mt. Soledad render it the focal point of the public park in which it stands – so much so that it may be said, as between the Latin cross and the park, it is not clear which is meant to adorn which. No comparable symbols of other religions are present to moderate the cross’ sectarian message. Nor is the cross’ sectarian significance mitigated by its history. In fact, to the contrary, history belies and reinforces the sectarian significance of the Latin cross displayed atop Mt. Soledad.
The City contends that is permits the cross to stand in order to commemorate the lives and sacrifices of fallen soldiers. “It is obvious,” asserts counsel for the City, “that a cross used as a war memorial has lots its religious symbolization and has become resymbolized to take on a new commemorative secular meaning.” Defendant’s Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Summary Judgement, November 13, 1990, at 11. Obvious though this may seem to counsel for the City, however, it is equally obvious to this court that “even if one strains to view the [cross] in the context of a war memorial, [its] primary effect is to give the impression that only Christians . . . are being honored.” Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 235. See also Declaration of Rabbi Michael Sternfield; Libin, above n. 26.
More troubling that the City’s characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey’s deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city’s purported commemorative objective is a pretext.
The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts, and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial. That occasion was the cross’ dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross “is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world was and the Korean fighting.” With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.
Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicated that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross’ purported commemorative purpose.
News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross’ completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, was crucified.
City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country’s war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was “no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial.”
In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even the federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the “Soledad Easter Cross.” Eveb the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promoton of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.
Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City’s conduct, consequently, in unconstitutional, and the is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which iit has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 (“because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resourt to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so”).
>>>>
Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134
Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406
Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006
Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005
eace