1	redressability requirement, he has no standing to bring this
2	action and it must be dismissed.
3	3. Newdow lacks standing as a taxpayer because he
	failed to identify any specific expenditure of
4	tax dollars for the prayer.
5	It is equally well-established that Newdow does not have
6	standing as a taxpayer unless he can identify tax dollars spent
7	solely on the challenged conduct. Doremus v. Board or Education
8	of Borough of Hawthorne, 342 U.S. 429, 72 S.Ct. 394
9	(1952)(taxpayer lacks standing unless he can show that Bible
10	reading increased any tax he paid; allegation that school spent
11	tax funds on teacher salaries, equipment, building maintenance,
12	etc., insufficient to confer standing).
13	Newdow attempts to establish standing as a taxpayer by
14	alleging "on information and belief, federal tax dollars were
15	spent--under the taxing and spending power of Article I, 8, of
16	the constitution-to hold the ceremony, to assist Rev. Graham,2
17	and to broadcast the Defendant's religious message." Complaint,
18	IT 25. These allegations fail to identify any funds used solely
19	for the prayer. In this circuit the Court has specifically held
20	that a taxpayer who alleged generally that a school spent tax
21	dollars on "renting a hall, printing graduation programs, buying
22	decorations, and hiring security guards" lacks standing to
23	challenge the school's practice of having prayers at high school
24	graduation ceremonies. Doe v. Madison School District, No. 321,
25
26       2 Newdow uses intentionally vague language regarding the use of tax dollars for Dr. Graham.  If he believes tax dollars were
27  used to pay Dr. Graham, why didn't he say so?  Nevertheless, whether Dr. Graham donated his services or was paid with tax
28  dollars is irrelevant for reasons discussed in Section C.