establishment clause challenge to an official government act which targeted a small cross removal from the los angeles county seal because that symbol itself was a christian symbol to avoid the harmful injury associated with this particular policy and you need to look at the ellis case decided by this court and in that case a plate of challenged a county others that again construe standing very very broadly in the establishment clause case where that non economic injury would suffice but in addition we've also alleged taxpayer standing in this case and we believe that we have a less efficient facts that the plaintiffs had standing as a state in municipal taxpayer to challenge that declaration and interesting in that case the government alleges there was no taxpayer standing just because there was a statute that just declared a national holiday and this court said well  you know i know it's circular but  interstate funds in tax dollars causing further injury direct injury to point to vasquez we've alleged that he's made his full tax payer so we have alleged the the pocket good faith pocketbook action for the taxpayer standing and there is a direct expenditure associated with that june policy and it's in the thousands of dollars of fact if we could have discovered quite frankly it's probably gone up to close to a million dollars for them to enforce that particular policy in those tax funds that are directly traceable to that not a religious symbol the government can be a client say that the cross with historical and cultural symbol of the influence of christianity in the in the county it's a it is a religious symbol but it's one religion can acknowledged in the historical context and by targeting that symbol because it's a christian symbol and removing it doesn't track convey a message and i think that you know they tremendous public outcry and fervor that that that action by the city by the county historical and cultural symbol again your honor it's a it's a religious symbol but it's permissible and that it's it depicts the historical and cultural influence of the church and the founding of of the county so there  purpose and in effect when you look at it from the perspective of reason reserve or conveys a message of hostility towards christianity by targeting this small cross for removal from the seal because it's a christian symbol and again it's it's quite obvious that act conveys a message you made reference to reasonable observer i think you understand that's that's the standard we're applying yes and i have to tell you that's where my problem with this case is i have real difficulty understanding how this cross which is justified in the old seal as historic symbol can be replaced with the outline of what appears to be a mission understand the debate about that but i have to say when i look out i said gee that's one of the california missions how that can be taken to be an i look at these i look at the old seagull i look at the new seal i don't perceive the anti christian message i don't perceive and i don't understand how reasonable observer can look at the new seal and say that's anti christian because the reasonable deserver is not absent minded he has this county there represents the influence of the christianity in the founding of this of this county and they took off that small cross because it was a christian symbol every time you see the new seal somebody who is aware of that policy which you have to attribute that knowledge of that district court would describe as a christian church lends credence to the notion that you can have religious symbols that are part of the historical part of historical context without running afoul of the subject was i think what it shows is that they actually had a sham purpose to begin with so why they charge that this particular cross to reform removal that was the replacement of what they replaced it with unless they replaced it with the original seal does not negate the message that was conveyed by the june two thousand and four policy to remove that cross because it's a christian symbol and that's  that's what we're challenging the subsequence symbol is now a physical manifestation the same polic representation of that particular policy target that crossed in a recent survey who is aware of what that policy was we see that why wouldn't the observers say they took it off because it was a religious not necessarily christian religious symbol i mean i think in the same respect that's that's problematic if you're targeting my wife because this is the supreme court has said you can't tar you can't show disfavor to any particular religion purpose now is not you've agreed that it's reasonable server and we don't have to think that you know what the reasonable observer would say the courts are constantly dealing with this on a motion to dismiss when you look at what's what is the purpose i mean if you look and assume that the purpose that they're that they took it off because a religious symbol demonstrates that if they replace it with another religious symbol it demonstrates that that was a purpose of begin with they took that off because it was specific symbol of christianity and i think that's that's fine as we've a historic symbol that's uniquely religious it's a cross for heaven's sakes they replaced it with another historic symbol that has religious overtones the missions weren't buddhist but is not an overt religious symbol and if it's justified in being historic in the first place i really any discussion that they wanted to update this field because it was outdated there was nothing of that the whole discussion surrounding that policy in the whole purpose which for adopting our policy was to remove that cross because it's a christian symbol and i'm sure that his cause probably v well aware of the tremendous political public outcry that that created because the message conveyed by that was one that was unmistakable it was one that was disapproval towards christianity and it was well understood by my client and by many others and i religion people who are born of the christian faith because that's not that's not our we don't have we have a history of acknowledgement of religion in our public life we don't have a history of disapproval shown hostility to religion in our public life and i think people can understand that and this was a plainly an act of the government that conveyed disapproval and we've advanced because we're playing with them because based on that if you accept your premise but that you still have trouble what makes it so plainly a statement of received by many including my client and that's the basis for his complaint that you're probably going to show it's received by reason over server that's what i have real trouble observing i just that's where i am i happen to be a christian i'm not offended by the fact they decided to put up a mission instead of a cross i understand because i'm a lawyer the difficulties they faced if they were for have a lawsuit thrown against them because there was a religious symbol there i may not have made the same judgment i have difficulty understand why the county is not allowed to make that judgment and again it's what is the purpose and what is the effect of that action it wasn't it didn't arise because the seal is just going to expire on its own time and it wasn't it wasn't religiously neutral basis for them to take that  event there for a long time the fact that people are offended by the removal of the means they have to stay there that the that the cities in question can't take them away in tenure and it goes to what was the purpose in fact of their other particular policy if they if they've had a  a we have a history i mean i was we got a case coming up thursday addressing the crosses on public land or we have a you on that one and i am your honor we have a history of public acknowledgement of religion in the role of a of our public life i mean that's no person has the right to force their government to choose one particular history over another and throughout the plains complaint they refer to the cross as a historical and cultural symbol again the county is not required to pick one history over another the board decided to replace the cross with a mission to symbolize the history of the missions in the county and while plaintiff me dislike the mission may find fault with the mission may not like the artistic rendering of the mission it's not his call it's the board of supervisors call they have the discretion and if we start opening the litigation floodgate of either make sure we're focused on the right thing you're not arguing as i thought the times your brief was suggesting that just as are the county supervisors they have discretion period you wouldn't argue that they could take but still that had no religious symbols and suddenly decide today you know this needs some real some reference to our history so we're going to stick in a cross or a star of david or some other religious symbol the didn't have history being in the seal i reason i'm trying to figure out what we're really talking about here and what i understand from the dialogue that we had with with counsel and what i'm reaching for with you does it come down to just that what whether a reasonable  server would would interpret this change or understand this change to reflect or express hostility toward christianity if you accept that the cross is not just a historical figure and yes i would say that the reasonable of their it does come down to reason and i don't think that a reasonable observer again would conclude that replacing a christian cross with a christian mission shows hostility towards christian and let me take you to take the word christian out of as a modifier of mission because yes in fact the missions were christian if you look at this i mean i've i've heard this characterized as a taco bell too so the server has a zone understanding as to whether it's christian but mission i will i will give you i asked this public controversy judge brogdon showed me the front page of the daily news today which has this case on the front pages not often we have cases to get reported on the front page before we've made a decision that's outraged the public so what is it that that leads you to say that the reason but that is exactly that the problem i've had with this case because i use the first person in expressing it before i use first person now and i can understand that argument as it happens i may not be personally offended but i don't p be the reasonable observer all by myself maybe the rest of world discoveries that i should be recognized that way it's ok but i'm not and so we have an allegation made in the complaint at the stage of a motion to dismiss before there's been any submission of evidence or development of evidence is it appropriate for the course given that both sides are kind of stymied in trying to to prove up a case now as to what a reasonable observer would believe is appropriate to dismiss that right now well a out earlier these cases are decided on twelve these all the time the court is in the position to establish what the reasonable observer would observe and in this case we are we have differing views on what the reasonable observer would say our position is that the reason we'll never would not say that this is hostility toward christianity and in terms of the public outcry i mean i would say that there remedy is a law is a political one not a judicial one if they don't like the way the supervisors are voting then the poll will take care of that and i'll let the court has for the questions i will submit and the questions will i have no question thank you  of the policy in which and how it was an act i mean that's as best as we can as we can do is as we've alleged the policy here and you know we the attention always want to focus on what was the new c e o but our it's our challenge is to the policy adopted in june of two thousand and four it often turns on in fact in winter's donnelly the court said it's it's error to focus plainly on just a religious symbol in the context it is ever to do that so in effect what they've done is actually done arab i think by just focusing on the religious that we're not talking about a seal that consists maybe just of a big cross inside a circle and that's it where the overwhelming predominant element of the in this case seal is simply a symbol which is universally recognized as being religious possibly historic as well you're trying to put it in context to suggest that's part of what would justify letting it stand staff employees challenge against the c e o would have a better chance of being successfully defended because the cross was modest and sizing comparison with other parts and it's also part of the landscape is part of the history and plainly after the end award and i think it's plainly defensible and then it goes on further to show that if two thousand and four so it's in the other factors as we've alleged granted at the end of the day they ended up taking off the goddess promoted but in the in the policy in two thousand and four and all discussions related to it there was no discussion in fact of the fact that they put a contemporary history so i think in total when you look at the history in the context and how this arose and the fact and all those facts associated with that policy june two thousand and four i think we've plainly alleged a claim