Dallas jury rules against Bob Groden.

[Don Jeffries]

This is the reality of the America we now live in. Remember just a few months ago another despicable jury found two police officers not guilty, even though their twenty minute savage beating of a homeless man, complete with his pleas for mercy and cries for help, was all caught on tape.

My sympathy goes out to Robert Groden. With the sorry state our country is in, the courts are unfortunately the last place we can look to for justice.

[Albert Doyle]

To sum up the travesty, Groden is exercising his constitutional right to inform the American public of a serious constitutional violation in the form of the CIA assassination of president Kennedy. While labeling it technically unconstitutional via the usual pathetic means of permitting the local police have in effect labeled the illegal prevention of that constitutional right constitutional. So they have made the importantly constitutional unconstitutional and the cheap advantage-taking censorship of permits constitutional. Even permits that don't exist. So non-existent laws are now constitutional and previously existing constitutional rights are now illegal.

[Drew Phipps]

I'd like to point out that the municipal court's ruling which was upheld on appeal did not directly address the constitutionality of Groden's arrest. The ruling was merely that Dealy Plaza wasn't mentioned as a "park" in the city ordinances, and therefore the ordinance that prohibited selling on a "park" without a permit didn't apply.

I note that the City has 2 ordinances under which it might charge Groden, the "Vendor's" ordinance (under which he might have a legal defense) and the "Sale of Merchandise" ordinance (under which he does not have a legal defense). The City of Dallas has cited Groden 80 times (including this one) for violating the "Sale" ordinance and always loses. (Presumably this is because Dealy Plaza is not included in the areas specified under the "Sale" ordinance.)

I don't know if Groden's lawyer alleged or proved the 80 systematic and incorrect abuse of the ordinances, as part of his proof that Groden's arrest was unconstitutional. If not, he should have. If he did, and the jury didn't bite, that's just the way the lawsuit crumbles.

BTW a nine hour arrest on a Class C (fine only) misdemeanor is not unconstitutional in and of itself (it's not even that rare). But a systematic harassment of him would be.

[Dawn Meredith]

Bob Groden turned 18 on 11/22/63. This event would come to totally dominate his life. I first met Bob in Boston in 1974 when he was visiting with the guys from the Assassination Information Bureau. He is one of the most sincere, dedicated people I have ever known. The harassment he has endured for trying to assist people who come to Dallas so angers me. Yet he is always cheerful, continues the good fight. This verdict will not stop him.
Sometimes I wonder how my own life might have turned out if 11/22/63 had not happened. It was definitely a game changer.
I looked briefly over at the new forum- you know the one where you can't mention us- and there is not a word about this verdict. Yet this forum is just a JFK assassination forum.

[Albert Doyle]

Drew, I'm thinking defense of this decision might not be popular right now.


If the city had lost 80 times and kept charging they are clearly beyond the reasonable definition of cruel and unusual. I think they did rule on the constitutionality of Groden's arrest.

[Drew Phipps]

The appellate criminal court did not rule on contitutionality. Whether the civil jury had that question before it, you'd have to ask Dawn, or Groden.

Popularity doesn't imply correctness, does it? Most of the views expressed here on this forum are not "popular," I'm guessing.