You are on page 1of 43

7 CIT/ CERT MAIL

FILED DALLAS COUNTY 2/14/2014 12:18:05 PM GARY FITZSIMMONS DISTRICT CLERK

Smith Gay
CAUSE NO.

DC-14-01521
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

ROBERT GRODEN,

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, V
THE DALLAS COUNTY HISTORICAL FOUNDATION d/b/a THE SIXTH FLOOR MUSEUM AT DEALEY PLAZA,, NICOLA LONGFORD, BRADLEY HAMILTON, VINCENT GOLBECK, STEVE WARDEN, RAQUEL HERNANDEZ,, and CARLA D.

DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

NE\ilMAN
Defendants.

JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REOUEST FOR DISCLOSURE


TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Plaintiff, Robert Groden ("Plaintiff' or "Groden"), and files this, his Original Petition and Request for Disclosure complaining of and about Defendants The Dallas County Historical Foundation dlblaThe Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey PIaza ("Sixth Floor Museum"), Nicola Longford ("Longford"), Bradley Hamilton ("Hamilton"), Vincent Golbeck ("Golbeck"),
Steve Warden ("Warden"), Raquel Hernandez ("Hernandez) and Carla D. Newman ("Newman")

individually andlor

as

joint toftfeasors (collectively refened to as "Defendants"), and for

causes

of action against each would respectfully show unto the Court the following:

I.
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

1.

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 in accordance with Rule


Civil Procedure.

190.3 of the Texas Rules of

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I

il.
PARTIES

2. 3.

Plaintiff Robert Groden is an individual resident of Dallas County, Texas.


Upon information and belief, Defendant The Dallas County Historical Foundation

dlblaThe Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza is a Texas corporation that claims to operate on a
non-profit basis, doing business in Dallas County, Texas. Defendant Sixth Floor Museum may be
served with process by delivery of the Citation to its registered agent, Michael H. Collins, at220 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200, Dallas, Texas 75201, or wherever found.

4.

Upon information and beliet Defendant Nicola Longford is an individual resident


the

of the State of Texas. Defendant Longford may be served with process by delivery of

Citation to her place of employment, The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza,411 Elm Street,
Suite 120, Dallas, Texas 75202, or wherever found.

5.

Upon information and beliet Defendant Bradley Hamilton is an individual

resident of the State of Texas. Defendant Hamilton may be served with process by delivery of

the Citation to his place of employment, The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza,411 Elm
Street, Suite 120, Dallas, Texas 75202, or wherever found.

6.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Vincent Golbeck is an individual resident

of the State of New York. Defendant Golbeck may be served with process by delivery of the
Citation to his residence, 4280 Lake Hill Drive, Canandaigua, New York 14424, or wherever
found.

7.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Steve Warden is an individual resident of

the State of Texas. Defendant Warden may be served with process by delivery of the Citation to

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page

l2

his place of employment, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 75201, or
wherever found.

8.

Upon information and belief, Defendant Raquel Hernandez is an individual

resident of the State of Texas. Defendant Hemandez may be served with process by delivery of

the Citation to her place of employment, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 1520I, or wherever found.

9.

Upon information and beliet Defendant Carla D. Newman is an individual

resident of the State of Texas. Defendant Newman may be served with process by delivery of the

Citation to her place of employment, Dallas City Hall, 1500 Marilla Street, Dallas, Texas 7520I,
or wherever found.

III.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

10.

Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas pursuant to Texas Civil Practice

&.

Remedies Code

$ 15.002 et seq. because all events or omissions

giving rise to this claim

occuned in Dallas County, Texas. The amount in controversy is within the jurisdictional limits of this Court.

11.

As required by Rule 47 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the damages

sought herein are within the jurisdictional limits of the Court and Plaintiff seeks monetary relief

over $100,000 but not more than $500,000 plus

judgment for all other relief to which Plaintiff

is entitled. The amount of


determined by the trier of fact.

monetary relief actually awarded, however,

will

ultimately be

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PtrTITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 3

IV.
INTRODUCTION

12.

On June 9,2010, a meeting was held at the Sixth Floor Museum for the purpose

of discussing a plan to "clear out" those considered to be "peddlers of conspiracy theories" in


Dealey P\aza. At that time, former Assistant Dallas Police Chief, Defendant Golbeck, and other
representatives of the Dallas Police Department, as well as representatives of the Dallas Parks

and Recreation Department and Dallas City Attorneys' office participated and met with
representatives

of Defendant Sixth Floor Museum to come up with a plan to eliminate

the

competitors of Defendant Sixth Floor Museum in Dealey Plaza,particularly Plaintiff, a goal long desired by the Museum officials.

13.
in

Even though it was well known to the participating representatives of the City of

Dallas ("City") and Defendant Sixth Floor Museum that previous "enforcement" attempts on vendors

Dealey Plaza, including Plaintiff, had been ineffective because existing City

ordinances were vague and inapplicable such that previous tickets served upon the vendors were

all thrown out by the Municipal Courts, and Dealey Plaza is

a National

Historic Landmark, and

even though the participants in the June 9, 2010 meeting knew that constitutional rights were at

stake, they nevertheless chose to ignore these legal impediments and instead enacted an illegal

policy in complicity with the Dallas Police Department and Dallas Parks and Recreation
Department on June 9,2010, to "clean out" the Sixth Floor Museum's competitors and critics in

Dealey Plaza, including Plaintiff, in violation of constitutional rights. Pursuant to what was
described as a "clean up" initiative, "no vender policy," and a "crack-down" in Dealey Plaza, fhe

foregoing was conducted with deliberate indifference to the law and Plaintiffs legal rights.
Defendant Golbeck "advised that there would be clear communication to the police officers...on

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND RBQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 4

which the 'clean-up initiative' [was] actually targeting


theories."

- vendors 'who were' peddle conspiracy

14. As a

result

of the

enactment

and implementation of the illegal

and

unconstitutional conspiracy by Defendants and pursuant thereto, just four (4) days later, Plaintiff

was illegally arrested and incarcerated without probable cause, his property illegally seized, including publications protected by the Texas Constitution, and Plaintiff was improperly and
maliciously prosecuted for over two and one-half (2 Yr) years.

V. FACTS

15. 16.
has been

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a recognized expert in photographic and cinematographic analysis and


a century.

for almost half

17. 18.

On November22, 1963, President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated in

Dealey Plaza, Dallas, Texas.

Plaintiff served as the expert for the U.S. Congress' House Select Committee on

Assassinations where he was a key expert in the analysis of materials relating to the assassination

of President Kennedy.

T9.

For the last 49 years, Plaintiff has immersed himself in study of the assassination
as

of President Kennedy, including writing five (5) best-selling books on the subject as well
other accomplishments.

20.
the JFK case.

He is recognized as the world's leading expert on the photographic evidence in

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 5

2I.
movie, "JFK".

He served as the chief consultant to Oliver Stone throughout the filming of the

22. 23.

He is recognized as a leading critic of the Wamen Commission.

He was the first person to bring the Zapruder film to national television

in 1975.

His efforts that year proved instrumental in motivating Congress to reopen the investigation of
the JFK assassination, including the creation of the House Select Committee on Assassinations
where he served a staff photographic consultant for three years.

24. 25.

He also served as senior program consultant to the 1988 landmark British

documentary mini-series, The Men Who Killed Kennedy.

In an effort to market and distribute the materials he has developed in his research

to inform the public of what he has learned about the JFK assassination, Plaintiff properly and
legally rented and procured a parking space in a public parking lot adjacent to the area known
as

Dealey Plaza that has become a tourist attraction for visitors to Dallas who are interested in learning more about the assassination of JFK. An illustration of the Dealey Plaza area showing
the parking lot in question (as a brown rectangle in the far lower left hand portion of the image)

is attached as Exhibit
verbatim.

and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as

if fully

set

forth

26. .

In

1993, the United States Department of the Interior designated Dealey Plaza as a

National Historic Landmark District.

2l

On weekends, Plaintiff sets up a portable table on the grassy knoll area of Dealey

Plaza and displays the items he has for sale that relate to his analysis of the artifacts of the JFK assassination, and he has done so for over sixteen years. The items offered for sale include a

printed 48-page "Memorial Edition" of a magazine-style publication entitled JFK The Case

for

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 6

Conspiracy, and an enhanced DVD edition of Plaintifls publication entitled "JFK: The Case for Conspiracy, The Assassination and Medical Evidence."

28.

On numerous occasions over the next fifteen (15) years, Defendant Sixth Floor

Museum, through its employees and its conspirators, engaged in a conspiratorial campaign to harass and intimidate Plaintiff by requesting, issuing, and serving legally invalid citations,

tickets, complaints, and charges against Plaintiff, and improperly dragging Plaintiff into court

only to have each and every case thrown out and dismissed because they were without legal
merit.

29. In the early summer of 2010, Defendant

Sixth Floor Museum, acting in

conspiracy with the Dallas Police Department and Dallas Parks and Recreation Department,

publically announced a new initiative to "crack-down" on vendors in Dealey Plaza. The City's
spokesman, Defendant Golbeck, gave media interviews describing

the initiative, while

Defendants Sixth Floor Museum and its director falsely claimed non-involvement. However,
Defendants knew, based on the dismissal

of many previous

cases, that the

initiative was not

supported by valid legal authority. Defendants proceeded with the illegal "crack-down" anyway

in order to prevent vendors in Dealey Plaza like Plaintiff from exercising their legal rights.

30.

On June 13,2010, on request of Defendant Sixth Floor Museum, acting through

Defendant Langford and Defendant Hamilton, requested that Plaintiff be arrested. On order of Defendant Golbeck, Plaintiff was then approached at his normal location by Dallas police officers, who arrested Plaintiff, claiming he had violated a Dallas ordinance allegedly preventing the sale of publications such as his on public propefty, seized his property, and incarcerated him
at Lew Sterrett Jail for nine and one-half (9 %) hours for what was, at most, a charge based upon
a Class C misdemeanor.

Plaintiff was forced to strip to his underwear for an illegal body search,

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 7

jailed in the same cell with numerous other anestees, and withheld and denied access to his
medications during such incarceration. Plaintiff was forced to post cash bail to secure his release

from jail.

A true and correct copy of the original criminal

Complaint upon which the arrest,

incarceration, and seizure of property were based is attached as Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein

by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth verbatim. The Complaint purports to be verifed

by Defendant Hernandez, who alleges that

it

was based on infomation provided by Officer

Frank Gorka, but Officer Frank Gorka has sworn under oath that he does not even know
Defendant Hernandez and that he did not provide such information.

31.

This illegal anest, search and seizure were carried out by order of Defendant

Golbeck at the instigation of Defendant Sixth Floor Museum and its employees, Defendants
Longford and Hamilton, and in conspiracy with Defendant Golbeck.

32.

The ordinance upon which the original charges against Plaintiff were based is

Sec. 50-156. Vendors on Public Property.


as

A true and correct copy of such ordinance is attached


as

Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes

if fully

set forth verbatim.

33.

Sec. 50-156 does not apply to Dealey Plaza where Plaintiff was arrested, and

contains an express defense for selling a"magazine" was arrested and charged. See $ 50-156(bX8).

the specific alleged act for which Plaintiff

34.

Thus, the City later changed the charge against Plaintiff and substituted a new and

substantially different Complaint in violation of Plaintifls due process rights. A copy of the new Complaint is attached as Exhibit

4 and incorporated herein for all purposes as if fully

set forth

verbatim. The new Complaint was verified by Defendant Newman, who alleged that it was based

on information provided by Officer Frank Gorka. However, Officer Frank Gorka has denied
under oath that he provided such information to Defendant Newman.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 8

35.

The City's new Complaint for the first time alleged a charge against Plaintiff for

alleged violation of City Ordinance 32-10.

A copy of Ordinance 32-10 is attached as Exhibit


fully set forth verbatim.

and incorporated herein for all purposes as if

36.
37

Section 32-10 does not apply to Dealey Plaza or to the sale of magazines. Section 32-10 purports to require a written agreement or a permit issued from the

office of the park board, but no such written agreements or permits are available for issue to sell JFK publications in Dealey Plaza, nor were any such agreements or permits in existence at or
before Plaintiff was charged and arrested.

38.

City Ordinance 32-11 requires the City Park Board to adopt rules and regulations

for the management of public parks, but no such rules and regulations have been adopted for
Dealey Plaza

- and specifcally no rule or regulation prohibiting the sale of magazines,


6

nor was

any such rule or regulation in existence at or before Plaintiff was charged and anested. A copy

of Section 32-llis attached

as

Exhibit

and,incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as

if fully

set forth verbatim.

39.

Section

32-II

also requires the City to post any applicable rules and regulations

within the specific park so regulated. No rules or regulations are posted in Dealey Plaza - and
specifically no rule or regulation prohibiting the sale of magazines is posted in Dealey Plaza, nor

were any such rule or regulation posted


arrested.

in Dealey Plaza before Plaintiff was charged and

40.

Thus, none of said ordinances apply to Plaintiff s First Amendment activities in

Dealey Plaza. Indeed, that was the determination by the Municipal Court that presided over the

City's erroneous criminal charges against Plaintiff. A copy of the court's Order dismissing the
criminal charges is attached as Exhibit 7 and incorporated by reference for all purposes as if fully

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 9

set forth verbatim. However, the fact that the

two ordinances in question did not and do not apply

to Plaintiff s First Amendment activities in Dealey Plaza was well known to Defendants, yet
Defendants used such ordinances as the purported bases

for its illegal crack-down policy on

vendors like Plaintiff

in Dealey

Plaza which was the cause

of Plaintiffs illegal amest and


property, invalid

incarceration, illegal search and seizure, illegal seizure

of Plaintiffs

prosecution, deprivation of liberty, and violation of Plaintifls legal rights.

41.

The City filed a motion for new trial of the dismissed charges, but the municipal

judge denied the City's motion. A copy of the Court's Order denying the City's motion for new

trial is attached as Exhibit 8 and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if fully
forth verbatim.

set

42.

Plaintiff was also told by the police that he would have to get a permit from the

Parks and Recreation Department. Upon inquiry, Plaintiff was told by the Parks and Recreation

Department that no such permit exists, nor did


arrested.

it exist at or before Plaintiff

was charged and

43.

Plaintiff was also told by the police that city employee Janet Hyde needed to

be

contacted to obtain a required permit. When Plaintiff contacted Ms. Hyde, she represented to

Plaintiff that no such permit was available, nor was any required.

44.

Additionally, Plaintiff went to the Dallas City Hall in his attempt to comply with

any lawful requirement necessary for his continued operation of his sales efforts. No one at any

of those offices was able to identify any requirement that Plaintiff had not already met or to
delineate any requirement that needed to be met for the continued operation of his business.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I

l0

45.

On June 79,2010, Plaintiff asked legal counsel to accompany him to his Dallas

sales location in the event of recurrent harassment by members of the Dallas Police Department

to prevent a recurrence of his arrest of the previous week.

46.

After Plaintiff had been open for business for approximately forty-five minutes,

two Dallas Police Officers arrived along with a private security guard working for Defendant
Sixth Floor Museum. Despite entreaties that Plaintiff was breaking no law, and violating no
ordinance by his activities adjacent to Dealey Plaza. Plaintiff was forced by the officers to shut

down his business operations or be arrested. The threat of a second arrest was made pursuant to the Defendants' illegal conspiracy to crack-down on vendors in Dealey Plaza,like Plaintiff, in deprivation of their First Amendment Rights.
47

The police ofnicers continued to threaten to affest Plaintiff

if

he made a sale, until

he left the area.

48.

After this suit was filed, the City's attorneys agreed not to further ticket or arrest

Plaintiff, but only while this case is pending.

copy of the letter agreement from the City

Attorney's office in such regarding is attached as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein by reference for all purposes as if fully set forth verbatim.

49.

On June 22,20I I , the City passed amendments to City Ordinance 32-10 to clarify

the Ordinance and make it clear that PlaintifPs activities in Dealey Plaza

the very conduct for

which he was arrested, incarcerated, charged, and prosecuted (and upon which his property was
seized and withheld)

is not illegal, nor subject to prosecution. A true and corect copy of the

clarifying amendments to Ordinance 32-10 is attached hereto as Exhibit 10 and incorporated


herein. However, notwithstanding this, the City continued to prosecute the invalid criminal case

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I

ll

against Plaintiff for another twenty (20) months, continuing the cloud of uncertainty and fear for

future arrest and punishment.

50.

On February 15, 2013, the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals issued its

Opinion and Judgment affirming the trial court's decision (over two years earlier) to throw out the invalid criminal charges against Plaintiff. On March 15,2013, the Dallas County Criminal Court of Appeals issued its Mandate commanding that the Defendants observe and obey its
Order. True and correct copies of the Court of Appeals' Opinion, Judgment, and Mandate are

collectively attached hereto

as

Exhibit

11 and incorporated herein.

VI.
CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST DEFENDANTS

Malicious Prosecution

51. 52.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set forth herein.

Plaintiff is a recognized and established expert in the assassination of President

John Fitzgerald Kennedy and seeks, through the sale

of the materials he has created and

published, to inform the public of what he believes are the true facts of the assassination of the
President, a topic of substantial public debate, controversy, and interest.

53.

The actions of the Defendants to enforce the Defendants'conspiracy to illegally

crack-down on vendors in Dealey Plaza have served to chill Plaintiff s legal rights and to prevent his lawful and peaceable assembly in a public place.

54.

The violations of Plaintifls legal rights as on set forth above and below were the

result of the Defendants' conspiracy to maliciously prosecute Plaintiff as evidenced by the


enactment and. enforcement of the illegal crack-down on vendors such as Plaintiff exercising

their rights in Dealey Plaza through the use of unconstitutionally vague and inapplicable City

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 12

ordinances set forth in Paragraphs 20-25 above, as well as the persistent, widespread practice

of

Defendants in conspiracy with City police in illegally enforcing the ordinances and in prohibiting persons from exercising their rights

in Dealey Plaza and the areas adjacent to it. The affest,

incarceration, prosecution of Plaintiff and seizure of his property under the City ordinances at issue was illegal and without probable cause because the ordinances were not applicable to

Plaintiffs conduct, a facl that has now been judicially established as a matter of law and
Defendants are collectively estopped to claim otherwise.

55. The acts and omissions of the Defendants through their conspiracy of
implementing an illegal crack-down on vendors in Dealey Plaza under the guise of enforcing inapplicable and unconstitutionally vague ordinances caused Plaintiff to be unlawfully arrested
and incarcerated, his property to be seized and held, and to be prosecuted by the City all without

probable cause, in violation of his legal rights. The ordinances under which Plaintiff was arrested
and prosecuted were not applicable to his conduct.

56.

The acts and omissions of the Defendants were taken pursuant to their illegal and

conspiracy to arrest, incarcerate, and prosecute Plaintiff for exercising his rights in Dealey Plaza under the guise of inapplicable and vague ordinances.
57

The acts and omissions of the Defendants proximately caused injury to Plaintiff,

including deprivation of liberty and property, and due process, loss of sales and income, physical

injuries, pain, mental and emotional distress, and injury to reputation, and attorneys' fees and
court costs.

Consniracv to Commit Malicious Prosecu fion

58.

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs I through 57

as

if fully

set forth herein.

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I 13

59.

Defendants Golbeck and Warden conspired with Defendant Sixth Floor Museum

and its security contractor to harass, arrest, incarcerate, and maliciously prosecute Plaintiff on bogus charges and to unlawfully seize and wrongfully withhold Plaintiff s property when they

knew, or should have known, that their actions violated Texas law. The facts of this pretextual arrest, incarceration, and malicious prosecution give rise to Plaintifls claims of false affest, unlawful seizure, and violation of his legal rights.

60.

Defendants maliciously prosecuted Plaintiff by conspiring to unlawfully charge

and arrest him, seizing and withholding his property, charging him, switching charges, and prosecuting him without legal authority or probable cause, in that the actions were based on
ordinances that were inapplicable, impermissibly vague, and overbroad and which did not apply

to Plaintiff s legal activity in Dealey Plaza, and without fair advance notice to Plaintiff that
Defendants intended to do so, including the failure to adopt and post rules and regulations in Dealey Plaza as required by law.

6I.

Plaintiff is entitled to damages, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs

incurred in defending himself as a result of the malicious prosecution by and/or as a result of


Defendants' actions and conspiracy.

62.

Defendants Golbeck, Warden, Hernandez, and Newman acted outside the scope

of their employment in maliciously prosecuting Plaintiff Robert Groden.

VII.
DAMAGES
63

Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 62 as if fully set forth herein.
The malicious prosecution and conspiracy of Defendants as stated above were the

64.

proximate andlor producing cause of actual damages to Plaintiff, including attorneys' fees and

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PBTII'ION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I 14

expenses incurred

in defending himself against the false and malicious charges, mental anguish,

and emotional distress, for which Plaintiff brings this suit. He also seeks to recover any
exemplary damages allowed by law

VIII.
REOUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

65.

Under Texas Rule

of Civil

Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendants

disclose the information or material described in the Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194(a)-(k).

IX.
USE OF DISCOVBRY

66.

Pursuant

to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 193.7, Plaintiff intends to use all


conducted

documents ploduced

by Defendants in discovery

in this matter at

any pretrial

proceeding and/or trial.

X. REOUEST FOR LEGAL HOLD

67.

Defendants are requested

to hold and to take steps

necessary

to preserve all

evidence relevant to this case during the pendency of this litigation, including but not limited to

all documents, records, reports, films, photographs, emails, letters, text messages, video, audio,
and any other form of communication or other evidence related to Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff
claims.
s

XI.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

68. All conditions precedent


Defendants

to Plaintiffls claims have occurred or been waived by

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page | 15

XII.
JURY DEMAND
69

Plaintiff demands

trial by jury on all issues so triable

XIII.
PRAYER V/HEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff Robert Groden respectfully
requests that upon trial of this cause, he recover from Defendant the following relief:

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Enter Judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants;

Award general, special, and punitive damages to Plaintiff and against Defendants

in sums to be proved attrial;

Award costs of court and reasonable attorneys' fees to Plaintiff and against

Defendants; and
Such other and further relief to which Plaintiff may show himselfjustly entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

State Bar

BRAD LEY No. 11

brad@brownfoxlaw.com SARAH B. SPARLING State Bar No. 24059659 s ar ah@br ownfoxl aw. c o m

BROWN FOXKTZZIA & JOHNSON PLLC 750 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 1320
Dallas, Texas 75201 (214) 613-33s0 Fax: (214) 613-3330

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ROBERT GRODEN

PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION AND RBQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE

Page I 16

3|

.ig
.:

irl

"'\.
,'. li,
.i;

+d
-F

i1

-+

E
{J
-r

Ud
T.r

8s t) r),

t"3

U'

t.rt l*{,
E

H
(

*
+*l,*i

{t &l

!tl|s

^rit,

jfrt

s
E

.h.:

s,

h, t+}l ,!ii'

.. t-r; r

f\;.

t$

TT I*

EX-$BfT
.o
E

.f I
;{

tl .tJ f 3,1t);l-') I
r

itllitlr

jR{ll.}jl

;f,l,fJ {il itinfr.fr. l3i}Flifi'{'t


,-trllrpfI$rl

rili.Ii-tt] ' fltr'll; : rlf,irlll(r 1t9,1 i *r:1.'ftN1': rr?

.i'r18 l)F T:t:t , :i)tt{Y oF "L,cS ,:('T


{)P
r)AI,,\.5

tlt 'rItH t4trNTcF/\1, {:ofJ&T t.'tlY tJ l){,1'*1.9. 1'13,!(S


'lll}t
1UT'}OH{TY'OF

i 'rllr{

}IillB'\ND i.lY

"IlE

l?dt'f$

S' 'IEXS;

?
D.IJ{g,
1..

- l0 L.,

$lfHsN L0eTErlgO.R .TEXS, THE

lttLfc 'JCCIJ$Y "rHE ,19 0

TttE ITT 0F DAJ,IS rR .SALE

DLrrIAs'

:QtlNff,

I:ryS.t TtE P"CE ASD ufsllIffY F,HE SrJ{r.

I
- n - * : i lj: ;; !'- i';r; i' - a n r a r ; - ; -#;;;

JfJi' $ eft
:-. '. +:. + - ;

CITV 'OF' DAbI.ATI DA;' CQUIfIY, TS(S


-i',ia--!+{a.-:9tr:rf {--i:'.q!+r.q-:i*.8.i-!:9::----r-F:.':*i-e.---r;-f

DEP.DTY CLSRK:OF THE iilttIcT^l COUR,I

OF Tfg

-r

EXHIBIT

lpnter.s0*

iil'Wqsr,\ ifg

58T"5&I$6" VTN }S,8 BN FTJBLTC FROPERTV.


persun c*lrlmits lu *iTfifls if h, ethe pvrsonally nr througlr n gdrlt' occrrpies public prperty in thc city tbr the purposc of seiing, r.listributing or offering for sle:srvic$ or gbocls. irrclritling, but not limitecl ta, fud. drnles, llover& Bldls' lickets; ,rr sonvenirs.

{*} it

Listributing or otf*ring t'pr sale services or goods:

{h} lt i$ e def'pnse t pra,sec.utj.on t$der lhs s$ion thar the person sellin.gr (l)
is *loiug so in connccticn wirh thc transaiich of rlfiial gover*ntsnl

business;

is doing so y aharity ef.a conlract with the.city.Ip oFerI a concessiufl n ,desigEalid areas {}f pubiic FrFgrty;

(?)

operafed m.acfin b,), ulhrtyf a licenn to porf'fh.'ffihitl;

{3)

in .s*llingi rtistributing;

or ot'fring lbr

srile. oiilY:pnriaeieals

liofil a ppin.

is selling istribnting, or otfering for sale gopf.or services tiom a vehicfe authrly pf ld ih:,$irtanes rl'.ilh.s CES conce$*ifu isris:fln$,lsfonper,mit a* provided for in this articls;

(4)

bt

'iq sel-ng, drstibU{qg; or t"fhjnt fpr sglg vEgnts"bl$' ,p$4ns, or qf, .as :*rt* pediitrablo coxTl*Jdiriss in thp ilonlgrated th. lufiiipt produca rnarket in

{5)

unmp.Iiance with

thsytpr 9:gf

1frig

cdei

is seliing rlis-triuting; cr o{fring, for sals a f,psd.orbveragc ftom a mohile. fbsd unit in asconlfficb wih $ection 5t56;.1 of thie:codc

i)

special event permt or a pfazgeve:t permit;

t?)

is:

seilingrrdis-fibdgg!, ar qf erig,for sal*.rgoedsro, srvice as authorieudlry

s selfing, riistributfng or offering for gsl oniy piinted ffialter that is. hot prined crnrnrcia! *t6,qluttrng; but nat limitetl to,. ng,vEppers and r.nagazirls,;and the .seliing, tlistributing, or off*dhg ibr:sale is not,bning coriducted om masbine$ sr QlherstnreturesltI$tgqu.F{pu}livpr.,operty;

{S}

pssesse a sp,eci4l. ey.qnt,prirri,, p-e evet

to a prsan n a structr* r,ve}ils, tbat s afixed to ths grour:d, or to a pero$:wbu pcrmit oi CBD colcsssl: lice$sa; iir

t9) isoBrfarins *yelicle,.{r htrrel {t0) ir se.!lng; dislributin, *fkdng for sa!. or delivflng the gqods or se.-re$ )

(t l is nol rceing rernuneration from the pcrson being given the sertic sr prorluv and the psrsot dlstrburing tha gnotls.or servi*es: d'fres rSot q1e,ffiy'rye,o:f'.verlcle i star4 any pa*.sf 'whi ts'ch ,t}ieund, ,Fhen diEtsibutinlthe,gaods,or,irvHp, and the method uf distti$ion does $pi irrsrferr rvith traffic fl.ow ,on public strEts or
sidervalks.

violatisn

{c}

of this

In addilion to any qnfprefiient prion by * perce oiTic.er sr the dt'r.6sts{ ftr + secfion. qv erson who is E victim of n at prohihJted. under'lhis

EXHIBIT
D

s
o g

I t.35.t0-01

t).#[4:,
CI;ERK:

?3-t0
fs
$9

R8Srr

$n0nl{

C0MPI"Tfi-ff

stT0r':xs g,{llfffY'0FD,{Lt\S I1fy{lFrrff.Ls


lFiT[
il{,{tvlB lNl)

JN TH,,{TJN TETFL CURT

clTYnFuS,TBXAS
CITHE SI'AT F'rEX.$:

BT'fHgrtUT.fItRrtY

UT$T&ITT; Tiirw.
PROVDF'?Q

*f}rNt

wH Frr-&,EING:BV

OF$BJBVE;
TI{EC-':YqF

'LtislAN
ER,A'

#,lss..*fr FBCE N

ffi#.ryosrHB.sT"{TE

,u#g."Y*)efl
.,,{ffil'.rf;

4*,fiA|.r.f lJD .F*,p.E

Meilll
:

"

..

{.,

1"

:.

.\

tl

i.

::

- __* j.t

,
EXHIBIT
6
li o

u.\LIrs crfT r{tg


{'h.rplrr J3'JaqltF *[d Wrr lteseqroir
'iec".

Jl-i

5l,t {)F .11RIT[llSfl.

*ich prr:on t[? :,yflrle igrgfifert or it l)drrr]_rr i:*suqd lior rhB r]Tt]c *) lhe pf]r iorfd firrirrnE tfiesa{e oliuch isms, ,.\pplic;rlron rbr suchlgrc*riteoir orpermr,is'rhall 'rr ucd.tll the qllcu ol thc park btrard. ({ld: 819}

it JlIl be urliwt:rrl lbr any pr,rsr r,o' scll cr ulTer l'r sat .ruy t'ood, rlnnhl; ':.1tlqtiun* rnrrktrlise on service .r sild unde:t. te $enF"pjtitg n.rJ .grr4r<f unlc*s

EXHBIT
-c
'6

sEc.

}?.IX;

PYIULJTTTfiH,4J'

}fJ$NH6 OF NULES TT

{uL.4,TfN6,

l}e park bod sball rdpt s.uch rules'td rgriltirrJ's it deeftrs.best tr thu mirnagement of tha public parks srd whsrs such rulos havs been adopted lbr o spee lfic Aarh aler arid posred wthiia rhc spixic pnrk sn re.gulated" auy prdon. fouud guiltytf violating,tuch rulss is"guiity of an or'fena frd,
l".los,

rl0l*

l9g31
{
t t t

t.

I t

EXHIBIT
.o o
a

(!

CT Uf NUIvIBR

JI

0.CI35'108.1

$T\'t (IF TX?\S

5
S

lN TtE MUNICIP,\I COUR?

#S

L'tfrYtFDAtts
DLI,\S COUNTY, TEXAS

I
IICIEftTCRfJN

p_neEs

Ihe Couit h4ying


t.r

cuoside-rqd he evidence nl agumni of counsel at p.erlalns

rhe Defelxdantf's ,Mr;tion'tr Sirash and/or Dismiss, makes the follrwing fnd1W'

Te underlyng offbnse' is *lleged to have occurred, cn, fture 13, 201. .An initial
lccmplalnr was filed onJune, l-3. 21t],,rs refrenced by ths;dafe'n the rrpperrigfit,hartd corner of the dsclfient and thg dafe stamp on the fce'of tl'le cornplaiirt, allegn,fhe,
_ -n
,A}tacl,uncnt: #1)" .A seeondiewrnpJaint,was

$sIic

Pr.r{fc'

filsd

in;'tlir's"e'$ nrhriber on
.a.

Iinif 9;:SI

fllteging the offens of "Sal f vferchassr' (AttachrrteRt #2);

thlrd;campl*irriyya"
' 'i
,

fiIed .o I$lT
'byalf

g, ?g3p;itlqd.-r"r tlrs elfsne

of "$alp: #Iftu*Uo.its-" aid

is.co$.grd , . I,

partie* tob.e.te.lfvepleadfngo this matter (A.ttel1*ent

+3){r,.Brlf

me Def.sridanths st CIrig bth i& orI argunrent'rid

ln

Sfl.S$r.f

trefendar-rti s trstiqxr:ia Ql*ach sq-,/or isrxss, sevv.l dis,tinaf Er-gtctntsi .T,he.our

fnds the following argrrrnenl persuasive:

It is the Defendaxtt's ontention that the applicablslaw Ior hje sondrrctis,,fbuxid ' '- in,Secfiorr50-156-of the Dallas City Cd nritlecl r'V'Eridersj Tiiliii Prpe{ty;;;- I

CIIVBGode rder

EXHIBIT

3q

o g

&

d\b - 3 5'l ut'nt


rffense rrnrlcr this secrion is reflectcd. in ltachment ll1, the [ir.slcomplaint filcd by the

$tsfe !n lhjs r'se on |rme l$, 2-1., Thg Defendant's fursrgr sontenlion is thaf hls
{riiuet

is sperifically

au}rorizecl ,under subsection (bXB)

as n li*tecl defense to

prosecution. 'I'he relevant parfs of the city ordinance state: $cclan

5-756

Vendar* sn Prblc PrlFrrry

{ir) A person cornmits ;rn o{fen.se if he, either rersonally ot thror.rgh an genl, oceupjes prrblic pr-ope,rt/ in fh ciry f"r the purposo of selnp disLdbutinp or

offering for.sale sey'tces cr goQds, induding, birt noi'lfrnifed flowers, plnnts, rickefs, or souvenits.
1b)

fCI,

ftod, drink+

Ii is a defense tb pt'oseculion, rurrfer ths sechioii thar, ihe, prson


di*ttibuting,i:rr:ffeiug.;fx$eteHirvl.tgood.e.l
'r

selling,

's

is sellng, <tistributing, or offering fot sale ontrtrr printed matler that {S.) ;{er

suiiur'.Terci piiinted. nriifter ineludirg.

bitf not limit{d

t.

rl.cwFepefs.nd rn4giilie,rld the selling;.di,.tributinL6 or offering fr ,s*le s not beirig::rundtll.edrftsqrr$e ines o,i,thfrplkl w that'@nrpy public properhz;

&eEUrabT .tke Sfte

*ight

l4deed p$ue roseuHon of

il

Udqtrdg.t

u"d

r.lr,*

sctin nd

if woulcl then be fhe,efendanfe biuden to rise,any appicabte defenses

irtt.te& +f-l:itsue which beomeq q factral de;gmafin for.the hfrrcf fuE*. ln,r-eep.{3sse

to this irgilrnent, the Staie'contnds that it is not tlre Defendant who'may. decide, but nthgr hp Sate.who will &-s.se,lW,,t.pldc.*d in ttiis chu;
.has proffre$. rio-Ylgal
:s

i.l}.,.es, The State

,:ii

authority to supporb lha propositiqn that the appction of :

ecion 5Ct156 to the tacts'bf ths cse is fmproper. but merely. lhat

t i5 the Statds

chpce to-'proseedts the Defeidant'rxder,q rtirfJer$tsecron af'the Dalias ClyCode,

. ;l

LLd\rodendcr
.1'r'i i"
"'') l,-l

'ril

.a

;ftb'[5gt{u}.4t
ln
thig qs, the,State iq choirg to Broceed under Seciiqn 3?-1

tl the Fafiae
the

City Coele ertiiled 'f5ale of Merchandisd' as evidenced by Afhrchment #0.


cr:mplaint filed July 23i201t. The reJevnntsection 6tates:
l;

$ectlon.32-10

Sale of Msrchqsdc*

It shalt bq ulaw. for anyp*rson to seil or offer for sale any food, r-irnks, confectonr,treieh4ndise cr service*.ih areas under rhe conhof of *he par'k hnad rmle;*gur-h ft pern has wfiten greerhnt c.r a pennt issud fior* gftg *ffice of thc p*rk board peraitting the ate of srrch iterns. Applicafion fcr urh. ageemer*ts or permits .shnll b'matie t*'tte,office of lhe park bonrd.

hls sectlon

appars fo apply

in the sltua.tlon:in which an.area is "1rn{er the ctmHol of


i

ttee pqIg.rz {Secton

secfion 32*10 ellirs' iy'.ode)r ag *o:rtrasted

te ublc

,B.toTryr,ty'"

5IS..

a Cihy Code) generatiy, A:a pJici tci,the caseatihnd;lfli+*lwnys:

ins,um.en'FpSn' the :Strfe

to shon hev* th *s.ticl$ c the 'tefendfl$t,fa;4, M,tl

*s,

section of ,thg allas Ciry Code nd:are theiefotc:uithn the jurisdictioi of the.Coqr.ti
,

t'.e$dqnt.,r!,gses that thq,sppl#on and $tb$rl$g8t lfcc4st$ sJ' 6.cn;-*


dJ: rlie,.las

iFy tde

rs,

predicated upn fhe sbilitl.{ d-,,sn,irdiyi#t"

s'i4qeqg,fror h o#ir+ of
pexrrtit#ng:.thaeale of *rih,frrg'" a$'gtttd,fl,the relevant sac-tin,
'!.

Une"

q,kiponrd

rulrfug*t
':
"

slafed lhgt,,nCp.her+sented hia,relf


prrcedre

ih

pf,saehergas. fsld$hat{i-F&#Ssr"

nd/,b.ef:nis for eatey'Flasa;: ! f,$p| wqs,

rgues that
"Par.trca

if Chapter 32 of the Dailas CqyoeenHlud ,;--"-

wer,nrendad t .$Elf }q.P,e$v,Fl*-esgs-n*e.iJ1"f

lanrp, '1.

HVEZ(VCrdgI Order

"

at at} l,ili'vrrli')l ol' t irl ."t,1 ';; {o,t tto'"'l' be sutt :r*,,1o ftrrj.l,lt slll trlrnu3b

---

i'fru-'iil

*-*

.Yg

"}'b- Df q\Y-l\\
rlru Dlls City Corle rlntitled "Prrrnu.lptio n a.ad Pr:sting of fttles nnd RegulBhun1'

would

l.so

apply. ll.his seeton

pJates:

liection

32-lt-1

I'rornulgalion nd Fcqthg,of{lrles artd Regulntltn*,

'[he park lioad sl'rall adopf sudr rules and ,regrrlations as it daems best for lhe rnaragr,rent of th*.prrbiie.Bnrks arrcl y'here such ules tv heen adopterl for "* speeific pork area and posted ritln fhe spe{ifis p53 so rsgulated, anl Fersn found ,g1ilty of violating quch. rules is gqilry f qn off,erse,,

This nand.1try provision requres the park botud ho adopr anti post rules and
regutarions

ts

,!f cleems besr'for the :rnlgemert of the publlc


,

parks"-

'fti.e

furb. has

ie considereA

"

'pulli"

park-,
Pir.k

Chapfsr:3?:rf:flrs Ilag,Cty Code speei.*a'ide'r*ifies,ntrrierous.p;t<;q1


14,ltg

kit
,akg.

nnd 6tale Sqir,ound #dtgfi* P;it'k go,

&gak tke and gaqh$qn

f{seltroir'$, krn. Ftirk, anrl LBke Ray Hubbard.

'tV,}i tlrs:$filrt

recrrgnizes that ths lit.

js not exhaustiver

the-

Cixrrt does note tha$ ealey Plasfl s not spesifieily.narnd


'

arvwher lhhe-pler.cfith,*,'*tlq*iryod- 'taplfedant" to the cor.r*sryr;a{gus


that lhe location ofi his allegeel ffnce, ealer Plaza.does not falt wtthrr Sectt6:$1"

of the Dallas Cit Code,

T!

is uncontroverted tht thiq *a has been


.t.!ie Frs.derl
1ls

cieqi6na1ed
'I

$#,-

etley FJsa.$Idrlal Fstria Landrnrk ni*.htni fug


speefia lqgpt

Goveurmen *f{'

4.*sigxa+n.have o,t gtr t*+.nd,T.

fptrrT; nfh partir*r

are po*i:ed.a+oftiig dte af the frearingpqfs,,q$t'fe

Code,
Tias presented

no atrtbor

Thls Courr for the

ap?licfiii

.of 5e*trn 4 at $tt'Jtrrt,, lqnt$', , [t]'l l'':


,.;r1?o

Di:!f
{r;)

i,1t .rii

s
Y,

cf tn-bSs'teY-$1
llasccl

on the rglrrsnts encl *.ulho:rities


ha.s

r.ffered

liy

the P;rrties ir thi.s ctse,

withottt Inorer the Cout tjoes nof believe it

jurisdctlen vr the case *s presentetl.


t,o.

llkerfpre, thg rurl gxrntd the flefendsnf'* lvJcliurn

{r.rash nrcl thi' se is hereby

dismis-ec{, 'lfte Ct:urt cl<ieg r:rrf con*icter Rsr c$nmnt'n ,y

*f

tlie rtfier argtilnents

presenlec{ by the l}efendant ancl fhs Order is lirnited fo the a'pplic{jr:n of the law io the

facls as presented n this hearing regarding tiris

r:ase.

SIGNED ths tlrth rlay of December, 2010.

Cqrrie Chave

:f{of

-trq
;

t, .3i' .t.i'/, ir . . t:. '+. gi .,tff l66; ,,,: 't',1 1 1ii! , i ; lp, "X.{ ::iXitllt) *ttc ' i:'it i:?'rnu#,"il! If,{VEZGrodcn Ordcr .-_ Y8
)tfl-TJ3 YIU'l.1(]

'p
c,4usE, tuMBIiJl 110.03540s;i]1

:.;s

$"IEOFTXA$

l'J TTTE

MUN TCIPL OUN.T #6

r
$

TTfY OF ,LL.45

$
'

ROI}B,RT GROEN

]tts cQuryY,'rtsx^s

itis'Court,ie in icceipt f

th Sthtls

Mfin ibrRfdgrsd*rarton and Bricf,..dled

rs}:28,,?0t

rhg

Motio for Rtconsidcrltion,tild


Rquesr fot f{raiig.{il*d of fi
in

,Il cevrnbr ?9u,21.0, and

Jant.ary erOI

" B#il srT'werdr;

*'nd' nequ*r,t'f*r n|al tiilcd

ttssti-ng.,t*d lanur,"4; 20I

fott*v

$tarat
Flin B Fecisally.eks,f,s thE

Addtibdll$ tfie
etusion. of tilt.lor 18'

itif sithshi,o*orionr"ne*er.ii-ffi ,ffi$'-i{,8$ff:i:r-'"

T'hc:rt{ln"c,fCIJ}*ingl{.,boitojlingr rfl.+{.s;g4'lFs{i}.rl$lst Prp{rd.urqrlsic!&f tlntlipd.tu fipw?rtaP:rybh.stss,


in$lt'fq,uo.,i.lrr',F.h{ih.$kr brfrtll,ild:i,a..r-${,trljlp

La{rrl$h. gtEr* M.otian

forBe*bsjqt'gi,rs{,F-$f tgcthrr#l,J fls trs,'*


8iI.*r* rndFtdnt.o|.l
...;

Mol'isn'fftsruionafrnv,aud-&eqrsl,ff,f;1;tirh,i*:lhc

qlffin$?.Frflr.ttns$rn

.. - -.. I i,ri ilI ;tli


"

,.

liy &g{

'lqrwf

EXHIBIT

! o 5

lt"'t3{Vog-d
Corri th no
.

l:'q"t

Nrv Trl4

this qc; rJrv e*,T flr:8s rhst r ttotir.rp..hy $p F1EtiL Tb

irction ur th rcquesfrd rclefrcqucsroJ is spcciically pruhitriled by lnwr

SIGNE this 7 tiryl'$lugly, ?t1

l,

C'rlri+

FrceiilngJudg4
City of Dall

f.r Vtlhg-r ,", :dT ..,- . All;,, ut'f,: r ,. r rir* lrr;U, ;t; :r!1., ";,,, ., t,y:,i ,iiriiii.ii.,

* , .'1,

-"*

-*-l-.,s

i6qEi"-i;

Y-'

i:n

j -.

t:.*

.:tit .i;ti .li.i


.cil{v!trd,s,l"fErrrdtn

r,

tsl

'

JlJi,, 1.ltl0

].4P!/

0.o1'ofnattas

Jly 1010

Lw

SuitA
Hrrrst, Te)ras760-54

Kit
T

Eradnv.,Crt af Daltqs el a-I? civfto. 3;t'Cv'0I280iF ECf

it{i.:'Tl

ib

r'fh.ery'

't ) t

t
does

t'

rot: n!nd,t:
P$Tt+iFs*4Si
yo-u

sris:,?sa$sq
'.-

:E

nespassr1

Sfodg

nav asltresdo4 please fee'l ftee'ts f,drB$'Fsi

lt
.o

f
B N

I
I
'l

.Fy'Hq!t

hJA-- 4q'.7s2j'. rRP'flNtt/67t'Q5Js''aX'aryszolea

! o o
g

EXIBtT

11X68i
KEY FOTUS R GEA TAT

.AGNDII ITEM # 35 Betfer Cujhrral, s ard Recretional rnenitles

ine 22.
Atf

2A1

cCIuFcrL !$rRtCfi.Sf:
DEPARTMENT:

Park & Recreation Faul O. Dyer.67,4071 N/A

tlro:
itF$GO:

.supJE,qT An ordinancs mendlng thsptr'32 of the Dallas cfty code fa: {l) clarifu. when selling, di$trbufng, ar atlernpting lo sell servicee and goods in ety parks and othr property under the .control
defenses and (3) provide for enforcemsnt - Financng: No cost consideration lo the

of the Paik and Recreation Bsad is prohibted; (2) provde for tity

8,4$qryo,$.!iq
Section 32-f CI of the Dallas .tity Cqrte cunently pohibits a prson froni selling, distribuiing, or attemptng to sell seMe$ nd goods on property under ihe conirot f th pafl nd rcreaion brd rle,s$ that ersh has a witten grernent r a FeiRiit
issued l:y th ity..

Th proposed Brdtlance arnnds, Secton 32-10 to clarify'the o.ffnss and lo provids defenses to prosecution Thsl r smjlar tr rJefenses provfded for other ityregufaton govefnlng vendfng,on pubilc properly. The proposect rcllnance..r'old lso aufnofie a Pefson v-vhQ wilnesSes A,vjolatn ts file.a cornptint wth the cily attomey.
PR

!O cT

19 r{/R EYI

Eltf f o rci I, B q a ds. c p ri!$

i-ssjeh

Tfie Fark and Recreation Board -rvasbriefd in losed Sossion an November 18, 2010. and -ianuary 27, 2$11.
ity Council was briefed in C.secl $esslon o June 1, 211-

rf-$4qlff'qFM.4TJN
No cost consicleralion to the City.

111681
,,119/XQI I

r)rDr,,Nr*iN(1,

2 B4

\r

r>rdjnnncc anrcnrling .Secfion 12,.1{)

rf

CII{TPTER 32, "P^RKS AND W.TljlT

RESER.V()[RS," ttl'(he utlas Ciry Code, os aftcndedi pnrhibting th sal. disrrhurio, or ollerrlg flrr.r;tlg uf r:rry scrvicS rr'.grrodg ih,llty paij(s ar orllci ilieas und-r the control of thc,patk
.rnd rcc.rcaor boanl; pror"itlingdcl.ns* pr.oviillg fhr enflorce$enr; provi<lilg a pcfigFy nt to exccr:r-l.SJtl; provding

a srvn^g clause; pr<rvidlng a *severabiliry claus arl povidjrg

or

lcctive date,
IJ

ORI)INED IJY TI{E GITY (T]I'NCIL

OF

}E CITY OF AI.I.AS:

SCIION

I.

Thal Scctidn 32-'l{i, "Safe of lvlcrchadise," of ,rtrrtele I.

"l

Oee.ral,r'

of

CIiAPTR 32r "P.ARKS .AND WA'IR RESERVOIRS," ol rhe Daltas Ory eode, as rme$dcd,
is alncndcl tc.read as fbllows:

".q8c..3?-10' S,\tEr.r.ERytcESO{Lo.q$lgI*E4.plq{eFTy
li+*BR6F++NI$El.

\ i+t"sh*tlthe-*n.te*-l{-Ser*syJ person cqrglils.ah ulfens.ejf lhe o.esol ftrrJ sel]g. or offcr5 ibr suh any scrvices rrr qoo{ls, igcludins but not limitcd to food, drinkq cont'eciions, 9 incrchamlise. [eruerieeJ in .cltv rrk qr alrqthe{ arcafeJ under the control of
dj-tUgS,

la)..

the rark and rc{.lr:calion board lu*tes+-sg

f'rnn".ihf'fise-$fuhe-'5ra*-bear++-eri*ing+h-'!e"f-{Bh-it}n-:Afrieal,ie+*+-*e

ryFgre*s"-or.pe*t**rti-ben*ede.+beolice-s+r,*po*+ssrgl

fb-|*[

iqj-dqfenc

{o prosecurior

undq Scbssc3iol4ldrhi-[cggqr.llsr thp

erson;

. rrag aulhoi-rll_o:l_a_h8_ggllFjcl

ti

sc

ol ,perml

lvitb.

ale fl,i scruices or sopds. by nadr qd rccfca

dgplrtme.'to" operte c concqqqicin.ii_r..rbat *ej

g4
[]-*lg{t.

11168,tr

Of *.rr::ui[r:.lc,*]Lsln!J )s,-{r_allrlt_lr_ii-llt_arylccl_{u-g.ad$- 1gj4gg$lf-yrli-tlftr:tClSgJ-gtui l ro ir.:rnn n t buscsS:

eoUulgDm4i-reirln

u r:r ale-o[ly___iln_.rlcr_it*-c-,,sJljnu., sri al s]ecclLiqciudr:Llgtcl@

il-ry].:

irtil&liJle-,.#djq3grl,vjft. conrpa4.rt-r.i,,r rCDsj. cr dreiI_yr_s{rll-rlsolU_yBl-.-,rllh" rIjnrr, rlitjbuflhg r flfi{ir t{'t ride rvrj_0gl-SgtA_Af.ldudl
I

--*[qrI*nircb,Ig;
rvs closed ro lh

{!U**ilr tr iirns-lfefl h{irc.r


LqL .
in
-an

publc;

r<ri ird fF:srnse.i

iDl*,*:jt
('li
rlcn16fi
.

ndrtLS--L.qj{Iol or n,n.1qcmcn

r.

fgF__qll-UqtpuW[]Llqr_U'itn srcoment w

iit|i4q_

ilqv 1uldiit._iqllUdiqq but n.r l(iited m a rccrerinat

lf

qgj[g[[ thc rrarh*d_leilclrar.Mrft.Or

. .. 0_q Earl,inq

lgl-fhat s;Y{a cif, g.ark o nnothe ara under lhe

iL-.

il

qr

wy lhat f,1-nrgtc-d.irggligisfrqe{

qr sidervlk:

ilnbc1.

(5I'Li

rvs

se

l!Fg o{ ptfering fQr salo lhe ssrvl-e"-s-gf a while lbr hre rhat

"rvas

ili

{ perrod.bIthal pJxn:.

lld. nol reesive .remuqer.tiu lnlhe 9{spl bingglygrte $erviges or gpoCt: 4id .not use qny rvlig o[ vshicle ti stahd. .anv.pa!L*f vh;sb touc.fred. the urrrnd.,whon digtbutfne the se/.eq_ol soq{s:, and dr flol,ii}rerfer$ lvilb nafli fto qn,.a_!,{bliq- srnet qi sideiva Ik wlen,istribu.tine the.seffices orr.qoegi.sr {l____$-ej4g-giliCluq, gf.fel fo iqlg_*or detivctigllpvic,es or
gods
susection.

{6)

tq a L:crstr cjrrali&in&-lilf-anI dfcrsc 'Jcscib-cd

jfl

Pnraeraphs

ll)

Lbrougi 16) of tli

2841
.UIrt r,Jcl0tirln. (lqulrlrncnt,. Or ir]. arthoritrd.

111681
thq

Lel*i-il!J4!ulg,-arrx-u!]iuec[r.'nl-ilgi! by ri pcros oiiicor oi

dirqjgirrl,rhsJlle

rrprcsculltrvg frr .a ,viO.laiion .of thS Secti.on. luiy rt{='1'sor*tllpiJ""1-tu!ilr"-ul4-Lcl-Jlialritu$l!l-t!l:-uselip.,gt} lyLl[es*-d..ydgirq-si


thr vlglation- and*rilrcr iclmissihlc.eirlCc."

dg-erigr. urjril:ir..comphinl rvitltllg _1q_&!q$l-qy^.bCc.-3ggerr-e_9q!S!-lqlC

tiolnton o[ lbis sectiori. !!rirv irgllglllljg^]irt


yi.-dsncr u I

lii&d.Kula-!i@

5[C'tl01i 2., 'fhat

perso vitlhrtinr a provirion. o

f this or<Jnance; upon conviction,.

is

punisha'ole bya ttre ot ,r cxe:ecd $5.

SELTIOI'I

3. 'l}at C-IAPTII 3; df fhe llas C:ily Coris. as mnded, wll emain


cxcclt
ni umnde<

in

lJl force ard effcct, rave rrnd

by tirs ordinancu-

SECTIOttl4. Tht lhc terrn* nd prrr'sions of this orrlinaRc ae sevrablc and n


,tov'erscd by.Sc'c1ion.
J

4.of C.IAPTR I of rhe


'fhat his liaartce uill

ai1as Cify Cde\ as iunenrlsd-

gtrCTION

5.

tl.e

ellbct imrncdiarely liom nd alier its

JtsisU

anrl rubllcution.irl uccrrrdarrce rvirh rhrj proviljjrrsf lhq Clartp of


ae'crrdiugty so orrJ*nrd,

te City ol'Dll, rud it

is

.{EPRDVE AS TO trRM.:
P.

J.. CigAaomcy

By

ltomey
Passed

JUN

? ? zsl

RO/nec/0005

Case 3:1&c.01280-F Document


I

3t.i

'fileor0e29111 pg

of

PagelD 368

I
I

0ilynf tlts
,STATE CIF TEXAS
lq

CUNTY

CIF

I\LLAS

s
$

ITv TF D.qLLAS

:l,.BOSA A. EIO$, Assislant City Secretaly; f the,Cily of Dailas, Texas" do hereby rf ly that the attach.ed is a troe anrl correct copy uf

HNANC lO.2S24r

wtch ws pssd by th Dlls city coucln Junu 2p.,2t11,

WITNSS My HAN.qN TH $'EAL OF ]-HE OITV OF DALI 4S, TEXB, lhis ths pstc rja! lJune, 2O{.{.

HOSA.e lS.
ASS ITANT TITY S EC HE-A.RY

CITYOFPLLAS, TXS
PEFAFBY:T-9

ttltc gfffi.ArY S'crrrtf Cl ruL Dluq

f,xs

r.gtEircNE !A,6,tsl3a

Case 311{}-v.i0128Q-F DO0UmBn

3O-1

Filerl Oizgl1

Page 2

ol4

FagelD 364

1r1681
4i

t9i20l

ORDNA}ICSNO.

2824

An orrlinance amtrrding Section 12-10 of CH,{FTER }2, *PARKS N WlTtt


RS[RVOH,S," of tle D;rllas City Codo as amended: prohibiling lfie .rale, distribution, or affcnng for sole of any serv.ice*.or guod in city parks orolher arcas untlL'r the conuol of the ark {d rrrrriatiun lrrr'Erd; pi<rvding rlefenrw;.pn:vidirg luf enforrrul; plovidirtg 4 :maJty nut cxcced 5500; govjding clctive date. I}E IT ORND BY T}TE CIN.,Y OUNC]L O Ti|hi
.5C-'IO{

a saring

clause; providirg a sev*bi.lity clausq autl provirling ar

i]'Y

OIJ I.;I1LL.AS

l, 'ffiat.fiecton 32-10,

"Sa!e of Mchandlse,'' of ,{ticlc I: "In c'enerari'ot

IJAr.ER 34 "PRKfr Nl"t VATR BEERVOIRS;:f $f lhF Dsll Cry Cde, 3 arfded, i.amedd l0 rffiIai fotlsrvsi

,rsEc,3?-f

0.
offery

s.{tgoFsnucEfr pR cpoDs or pAR


f4sR$.l}r{s41'

m$on orEt[L{3 o cffcif flt erjo4 l*sjsellg, orgood+ iqcldiq$:s{ti.ol lflitHd; lq food, ftink*, confecfions, q merohandse. te*-sen'ieeol in q city part qt qflpther areafsJ under the colrol of

, ,a t@

dt:gi!g..r

f ple my

"sqtuices

ihc pnf and rccrention bord I {}eri:+hq-ffis-{i.tlro+*C-li

ijree#stseP
f bl

ittrt+is{
o[udu

t}F+ubh_iterns-,4peliIi -.n*{dr.srilb
.

I!.

is,a dfbse lo uros ec!

Sustcriol [] of thi s ectiot lhat thc pcnon:

{t)

alllolity gL a. lvrften contmct

was selliner distribulrts. or oflsrirs l0r s-ale tft-c servic-ss B popdg by sr ermil rvilh lfis .rify, throupj- fh) pr.k and rcreaton

d.pamepq fo op.rlc a c"qn_csgjj.n.inlllglatg;

Case 3:10-cy{1280-F scumenl

30-1 Filed.06/29/11

PaEs 3 of

PagelD 365

28e4r
{J}
pSltD{..p.rimly

111fi8I

l.?I _iy,s s.'ilins, disiblrtjng* pt,qffqrlFs t{ salc. tle 9ryicp!_oLgg3gg_B i:otnefoo rvth th6 trannaction of off,cial gvgrnnaent s-itqp.qi
r,yrs .qeUins..dls!.ibut|ls- .or utfririq fof qa!4_$y_+_Ltgrtr_!L;ireg peech. inudni but: ioT litifd Jo rie.!.wsp'pir, hrjoks. tagnzies..audiq nrd video qornoact.disps "lC.Ds). t 4eitaly.Crg4dej$ry]._lrtfubC selling, dislribfltin.s. or of&rina l'or sal -Was.4qt bcifl g'.otduete.dr

non

lI Iill.gllL

. ft!p.a

mchiie":,

.al.a ine Wher

llqsrcas/as cloied t le priblir-i

..in

$ qrq uled q.;g.tgrge:


oi
anghj:t !.gfsg.B,,gr

in. an Aea under thc conrrol-or m-a.nagenent orivae cntiru nursuanl fo writtcn asroement wih th citv:

i
ente

insde aqv bnldlg, illudine Et

ot liried to s recrstiOiral
a.reA

{:}
tp qto
l .a

.io. parki4g lpt rhalscrves F,qiry,park,oJ qLqthSI


j{ a Wrthat obstruefed g pitllla sEget-o.r sid,Sy,l.ki

qpdf ,lhe

t g

ar$_a

nd
f

rgc ieai o,t j-o.4f J:- gf

fi)

oniracl:

hejegpcrLed-At-Ucrspc{

l5l - was selliirg or offetiug

fb:s .tLq .$J,Fic.q pf

a- -vefir:qf

e:fbr irg. tgt wg

.sidewlk lvh.cq

dsJd

s!

sgsectisn.

Case 3: 1t.dv-0120.F tocument

30'1

Fifed 6/2:9/1

Fage 4 of

PagelQ 366

282tti

11x681

(c), -. -h gdditien lq,+ny.cltl'qrqnerrt,ctign bv a pg.flce ollrla or *hqdi$'Stor.gf r park

SCTION purrishablc by a

2,

llbnt a persoil violating a provsion u[ths orrjinance, uFo& convj*ion..

is

l-ne

no( to cxcccd.$500. That C{FTER. 32


an

SEJTJON

3.

of ths Dlls Cty Code,

as amentlerl,

rviil enuin in

hll

force and eflect, savc and exept S8CTI'I

flIhdeql by rhis Onjinanc

4. -f
1."4

th tsr and provi+ions

of lhis

ordinnce .rlre severable and re

go?elned hyScetion SCTI)N

qfCI{lfPTER t of

the Dalls,City Cods, as.nentJd.


passage,

5'

i'hat this ordnance rvili tak effeBr irnedirtly fron and affer its

anrl pu.blieatioh iccrdaricp


a

wit!

hc provirions.oT theCharter

of thc Cty of DaJIq nd it is

econJn gly sp,ordained..

fFRol/.E 5 TO fRM:

TtloMAs
BY

P- FRJ(INS, JR." C'ily.lorny

[tcluJ
JUN

Arsislant CifyAnomey
P*ssed RDCg0005

tl ,\1 .4.
g
?11

Tania Robinson
Court Coordinator

Josie Massar
Court Reporter

COLINTY CRIMINAL COURT OF APPEAIS


Kristin Wde, Judge
No, MC-11-R-004-D THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appe[anr V. ROBERT GRODEN, Appellee
On Appeal from the Mrinicipal Court of Record of the City of Dalls, allas County,
Texas

OPINITN
This is an appeal from the Dallas Municipal Court of Recorrl. The Appellee was
charged with vioiating Dallas

city code section 32.10

on June 13, 2010. The Appellee

filed a motion to quash the complaint. on November

16, 2010, the presiding judge in

Dallas Municipai Court number 6 heard oral argumenfs on Appellee's Motion to euash,

on December i6, 2010,

the judge entered an order granting Appellee's mofion to quash,

The State filed a motion for reconsideration on December 2g, 2010, and,a mofion for

extension of fime regarding the motion for reconsidratiou on January 4,

2ar! . rn a

memrandum opinion, the Judge denied both fhe State's mtion for reconsideration and

its nrotion for extension of lime on January 7,201I. The State timety filed its notice
appeal on January 5, 201

of

l.

ffiffiffiw"{
133

Nofih Industrial Blvd., Dallas, TX

15201 (214) 653-5700

(214) 653-577'l FAX

EXHIBIT
.t

il

The State of Texas contends the trial court erred in quashing tlle complaint. The
standard of revierv for a motion to quash is de novo. when reviewing a triar court,s

decisjon to deny a motion to quash an indictment, we apply


See

de novosfandard of rcview.
a

LawreneeJ-.8!a1e,240 S.W.3d

glz, gl5 (Tex, Crim.

App, 20t'7). The trial court in

rvell reasoned order set out the following facts. The underlying offense was alleged to
hve occurred on June 13,2arc. An initiar compraint was filed on June i3,

2010,

second complaint rvas filed on June 29,2010, and a third compraint was led on July 23,

2010 alleging the offense of "Sale of Merchandisc." If Appellee had been charged under Section 50-i 56 vendors on pubic property, he would be able to raise a defense to prosecution of the ofense. Howeve the state chose to prosecute Appellee under

sectioh 32-i- sale of Merchandise. The triai judge contends thar it is incumbent upon the
State to show how the actions of the Defendant fall within this section of the Dallas City

code ad are therefore within the jurisdicton of the court. The triljudge further asserts
the State of Texas presented no authority to this Conrt fo: the application of Section 3210 of the Dallas

City Code to Dealey Plaza, the alleged location of the prohibited activity.

The trial court subsequently granted the motion to quash based on a lack ofjurisdictioir.

A complaint must state facts which, ifproved, shorv a vioration of the raw; the
compiaint must be dismissed
Posery

if

such facts would not constifute a criminal offense, Jee the Texas raw

v' state, s45

s.w2d L6z,r63 (Tex.crim.A pp.rgl). In addtion,

does not permit a defendant to attack the sufficiency of an indictment by evidence beyond
The

four corners of that indich'ent. see stare ex rer. Lyrcrts v Fine,Nos,Ap-76,4 70,Ap_

76,471,20r 1 wL 9301 r, at

*r0 (Tex.crirn, App. Jan.r2, 2trr). However, it

appears the

trial judge in evaiuating the location of the alleged offense, whicii rvas within the four

colrers of the irrstrument, determined that Dealey Plaza did not fall under Secfion 32-10
of the Dallas cry code, Her research was done in the Dailas Municipal code

ordir:ances' Violations alleged un'der Municipal Code ordinances re yery specific


the Dallas Municipar code is approximatery 450 pages,

anci

It is rasonabre io

assume when

presented with a motion to quash, the trial court judge in the Dallas Municipal Court

of

Recod would consider the correct applicaton of the specific code section to assure the

complaint alieged facts that constitute a crirninal offense under the appropriate section.

After reviewing the triar couris written findings and oder under the ppropriate
standards, this court rn'ill uphold the tuiai court,s granting of Appellees,s Motion to Quash.

JUDG]IIENT AFFIRMEN.
Enteed this the l5rh day of February 2013

Judge

Wade

Tania Robinson
CoLur Coordnator

Josie Massar
Conrt Reporter

COTNTY CRIMTNAL COTIRT OF APPEALS


Kisfin Wade, Judge

THE STATE OF TEX.,TS Appelant

MC-11-R.004_D
tr

II{ TIIE

.A.LI-S IVTUNICIP.{I.

DALLAS COUNTy, TEX,4,8

vs.
ROBERT GRODEN
Appellee

* * * *

COURT OF RECOR DAILAS CUNTY,TEXAS

* *
* JUDGMENT

IN THE COUNTY CRTMINAL COURT OF APPEALS DAI,LAS COUNTY

Based on the

Appeilee's motion to

coufi's opinion_of this dare, quas-h i, AFFIRMED:

the judgment of the triar cour-t granting

Kristin \ffade

rffi\*
133 North Industrial Blvd., DaTlas,

TX 752A7 (214) 653-5700 (214) 653-5777 FAX

Tania Robinsolr
Court Coor<Jinator

Josie Massar
Court Reporfer

COLINTY CRIMINAL COURT


Kristin'Wade, Judge

OI".-

APPEALS

M;ANDATE

TO THE DALI.AS MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECOR., GREETTNGS:


Before the County Criminal Court of Appeals, Dallas County Texas, on the 15TH day February, the cause on appeal t<l evise or reverse the judgmert between

of

THE STATE OF TBXAS Appellant DAT.LAS COUNTY, TEXAS

MC-l1-R0004-D *
*.

* *

IN THE DALLAS MUNICIPAI, COURT OF RECORD DALLAS COUNTY,TEXAS

vs.
ROBERT GRODEN Appellee

* *
tr

r!.

://Zz*'

IN THE COUNTY CRTMINAL CO,URT OF PPIALS DAI,LA.S COUNTY,TEXAS

was determined; and therein this Court made its order in these words: Based on the Courl's opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is

AF'FIRMED. \ryHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to obsewe the order of the County


Coufi of Criminal Appeals, Dallas County Texas, in this behalf, and have it duly obeyed
and executed.

WITNESS, the HON. Kristin Wade, Judge of the County Crimirral Court ofAppeals,
Dallas County, Texas, this 15th day

of

March, 2013.

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

By
Deputy Clerk

133 North Industrial Blvd., Dallas,

TX 7527

(214)

653-5700

(214) 653-5777 FAX