Yep. Should have done it in the first place. Sorry.
http://www.aclj.org/news/pressreleas...mmandments.asp
Quote from article:
-------------------------------
In filing a motion to intervene as a defendant, the ACLJ cites that the FOE owns the display and the property, not the city and argues that the court has no jurisdiction over the FOE or removal of the monument since the FOE is not a party in the case. The ACLJ also today filed a motion for reconsideration asking the court to set aside the July 14th decision declaring the monument unconstitutional, ordering it to be returned to the city and removed. The court’s decision was in response to a lawsuit challenging the monument filed against the city of La Crosse by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. The ACLJ argues that because the FOE is a private organization, its decision to display the monument is constitutionally protected and cannot violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
The FOE installed the monument in 1965 and the city owned it until August 2002 when it sold the property and monument to the FOE.
The ACLJ contends that the sale of the monument in the La Crosse case passes constitutional scrutiny in the same manner that a federal appeals court determined in 2000 that it was valid and appropriate for the city of Marshfield, Wisconsin to sell a statue of Jesus to a private landowner as long as it was made clear to the public that the city no longer owned the statue. The ACLJ represented the city of Marshfield in that case. In its motion for reconsideration in the La Crosse case, the ACLJ cites the Marshfield decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that concluded “. . .a sale of real property is an effective way for a public body to end its inappropriate endorsement of religion.”
--------------------------
So apparently, there has already been a similar ruling on this issue.