What's up with the prayer lawsuit? (Fun excerpts—including emails!)

     I offer a brief update on “Westphal v. Wagner,” our celebrated case against (some) prayers—in violation of the 1st Amendment’s “establishment clause”—at the SOCCCD:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A "heathen," evidently

     Our lawyers tell us that, of late, there’ve been lots of filings in the district court. By both sides.
     Plaintiffs (that’s us!) have filed a Motion of Summary Judgment on the religious-purpose prong of the Lemon test (the government's action must have a secular purpose, etc.). We’ve also filed a Motion to Amend that Order, asking for clarification re relief, etc.
     Meanwhile, defendants (i.e., Wagner, Mathur, et al.) filed a Motion for Judgment, arguing against the Court’s decision to deny them summary judgment “on the religious-purpose prong.”

"Heathen," agnostic
division

     I wanted to provide you with sections of these briefs that are understandable, and that ain’t easy, man. I have chosen to provide excerpts from our “reply on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment,” filed on the 13th, for a hearing on Dec. 27—that's a little more than a week from now.
     Don’t try to make sense of that language. The verbiage in the brief (below) makes the issue at hand clear:
     (Click on these graphics BELOW to enlarge them. They should be readable then.)

. . .

. . .

. . .

[Be sure to check this one out (above).]

. . .

[I've excerpted nothing from section II.]

. . .