Mojave cross case: a signal on religious symbols

This court decision came in yesterday.

Last night I heard a man tell how he and a group of veterans soldiers went up on that hill in the dead of night and tore down one side of a wooden cloak which had been covering the cross. Then he tells the story: If I understood correctly, the cross was erected, as the story says, after WW I on some private land. The gentleman who owned the land took care of it until the early 80's..... where upon, getting too old to care for it or the land.... he deeded the land over to (some)[I didn't get which] government agency on condition or in the belief that this memorial would be kept standing.

Remote, as it was, it was hardly an attraction worth noting, but this particular park attendant or ranger, evidently, carried his own resentments against the 'religious' symbolic meaning in the course of his caring for the park.... and brought suit. After attention to the courts produced negative verdicts on appeal, attempts to cover the cross with tarps and such were defeated by the winds and heat of the dessert. Finally, the parks made the decision to construct a wooden box over the cross containing it within.

Many veterans who were aware, resented the implication of covering up what they regarded as a war memorial, and a group of [I didn't get this clear as there were interruptions of noise at the restuarant] former (seals?) (special opts?) (some or all) stayed in Vegas.... and went to the Mohave, camping til nightfall covered their 'deed' and removed all but one wooden side to the cross. (Some of this was also due to a commitment some made to a cancer riddled dying veteran's wish that the cross be exposed before he died.) Their reasoning for leaving one side?..... So that the ones responsible for covering the cross in the first place would have something to do in removing the rest of their work to reveal the cross from all sides. Supposedly, a video was made of this activity.... and has been provided to MSM. (If I had t.v. I'd be looking for it. Maybe on Internet?) The speaker, last night, stated it was his intention, after this court decision... had it been adverse.... to turn himself in.

Many may resent the cross. It is a symbol of death. It is a symbol of sacrifice. It marks the graves of many who have already died throughout the world in war and in other causes. And, yes, the cross is a symbol recognized by Christians who recognize the death of Jesus as sacrifice payment for our sins.... made empty by his resurrection and awaiting his revealed glorification and recognition by all the world.

Summary:
This ruling came in yesterday. The case was brought by a park employee (the article indicates he's retired) who resented the cross during his care of the park. (I think this is a good decision.)