gave police the name Michael Tate Reed. He was later confirmed to be the same man who attacked the Oklahoma City monument. Reed even videotaped the attack on Facebook. Reed, who has bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder, and histrionic personality disorder, was acquitted on mental health grounds. Prescott v. Capitol Preservation Commission Oklahoma citizens Bruce Prescott, James Huff and Cheryl Huff, filed suit in a state court over the placement of the Ten Commandments religious monument on public property. The defendant was the Capitol Preservation Commission, which had given permission for the action. Even though no public (tax) money had been spent on the monument, the plaintiffs argued that using public ground was also a violation of Article II, Section 5 of the Oklahoma Constitution. The lower court, using a different interpretation of the Constitution's language decided in favor of the defendant (the commission), and allowed the monument to be established on the capitol grounds. The passage that served as the crux of the argument between the two sides is quoted here: "No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, donated, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, or system of religion, or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary, or sectarian institution as such." The plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma (ACLU), acting on behalf of the original plaintiffs, entered the case and furnished attorneys to help with the appeal. The defense team, whose aim was to restore the monument to the capitol grounds, was led by E. Scott Pruitt, then the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, assisted by two other attorneys from his office. Pruitt asserted that the Oklahoma Constitution did not apply, largely because no state money was used to buy or install the monument. The case, Prescott v. Capitol Preservation Commission, was ultimately decided by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in June 2015, holding in a 7–2 decision that the monument violates the Oklahoma Constitution's ban on the use of public property to support religion. The decision has proved extremely controversial, with some conservative state lawmakers even calling for impeachment of the Oklahoma Supreme Court and/or amending of the Oklahoma Constitution to remove its ban on state religious support. The monument was removed from