Lucien Greaves‘ full statement is as follows:

“Only upon securing the approval from Belle Plaine officials for our monument design, along with their guarantee that the monument would be placed publicly in their Remembrance Park, did we then expend the effort and resources to construct our veterans’ memorial. Controversy surrounding our bid to offer a monument in Belle Plaine’s so-called “free speech zone” was immediate, but only at the point where we were prepared to schedule installation did Belle Plaine officials decide to close the park to veteran memorials, specifically for the purpose of preventing our monument from being erected. We should not have to bear the expense of Belle Plaine’s bad faith offer to respect their own established open forum when they clearly intended only to recognize Free Speech until another viewpoint, outside that which they were directly attempting to accommodate, might make itself visible. Our case is almost certainly a straight-forward victory, and the city could have saved itself significant legal fees by merely agreeing to reimburse our expenses. However, Belle Plaine’s attorney, Robert Vose, seems unwilling to, or incapable of, grasping the elementary facts of this case, first declaring our case null due to our having cashed a refund of our application fee. Upon being corrected (we never cashed it), he ridiculously claims now that this $100 refund was accepted by us merely by our having received it in the mail. Vose demonstrates complete ignorance of the entire legal question by arguing that there is no “relevant case law that requires the city to permit the erection of a religious monument in a public park.” Of course there isn’t. However, there are mountains of relevant case law, as well as a constitutional amendment, that states that public grounds acting as limited forums for certain types of expression can not be regulated in such a way as to allow the government to engage in viewpoint discrimination. Belle Plaine could save itself significant legal expenses if they retained a lawyer with at least this elementary school-level grasp of the law.”

To read the article, CLICK HERE