Anonymous letter explaining cross theft

[cavegal]

http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/cross-19226-anonymous-theft.html

Note: An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, called the Desert Dispatch Tuesday afternoon, saying he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. While the claims could not be verified, the caller, who identifies himself as a veteran, seems likely connected to the theft. Below are key points of a written explanation provided by the caller.

 

• The cross has been carefully preserved.

• A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.

• The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution

[thundley4]

• The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution

The first cross was erected in 1934.

[cavegal]

The first cross was erected in 1934.

Yes it is 75 years old. I wonder about this "anonymous" person being legit? I wanted to see what the cave forum thought about it.

[The Village Idiot]

It is not federal land. It started private when the monument was there, given to the feds and is now private again.

The cross is 75 years old.

The letter was written by a moron

[thundley4]

It is not federal land. It started private when the monument was there, given to the feds and is now private again.

The cross is 75 years old.

The letter was written by a moron

The decision to return the land to private owners is not settled. That was remanded back to the lower court, because they didn't rule on the legitimacy of the land transfer.

[MrsSmith]

Presuming that snopes is correct...The first cross was erected in 1934.  The land didn't become federal land until 1994.   With 60 years of "grandfathering," the entire court case and the theft are completely in the wrong.

[Ptarmigan]

Stupid is strong in this one.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

So what this asshat is saying is: anytime WE think we are being treated unfairly we may affect such corrective measures as we deem fitting to amend the situation.

Am I correct?

If these are the new rules lemme know cuz I wanna play too.

[jinxmchue]

The decision to return the land to private owners is not settled. That was remanded back to the lower court, because they didn't rule on the legitimacy of the land transfer.

Actually, it is settled until the lower court can come up with some cockamamie excuse to overturn the land transfer.  Fat chance of that.

[thundley4]

Actually, it is settled until the lower court can come up with some cockamamie excuse to overturn the land transfer.  Fat chance of that.

So, it's settled but not quite. The ACLU wants the cross destroyed, not just removed. 

[littlelamb]

I hope that the cross will be returned and that it can stay up. I know it is wishful thinking though

[Chris_]

I hope that the cross will be returned and that it can stay up. I know it is wishful thinking though

The people that did it probably cut it up and sold it for scrap to buy weed.