You can't choose your neighbors, but you can try
Anti-Semitism is apparently alive and well in parts of the Commonwealth.
The Brockton Enterprise News reports that a family in Lakeville was harassed repeatedly over a period of years after they purchased property on Long Pond in 2005 and began working on an island, nearby.
According to the newspaper, the dispute was over who had the right to a path leading to a small beach area; the local homeowners association earlier sued to gain access.
"A swastika was painted on a garage, association members secretly took photos of the families and their young children, and repeatedly filed unfounded complaints with police on the two families," according to India L. Minchoff, lawyer for Scott J Hyman.
“My Hyman was repeatedly referred to as a ‘kike.’ He was told that his quote unquote kind was not welcome in the Hemlocks,” Minchoff said. “A person who lived in the Hemlocks said that someone is going to burn Mr. Hyman out. That comment was made to a police officer who later testified. Mr. Hyman’s then primary residence in Middleboro was torched and burned to the ground a month later.”
The state Superior Court awarded $1.7 million in damages to the Hymans and to another family involved in the dispute. (The other family's name is "Prescott", which doesn't easily lend itself to bigotry ...)
Ad:
Comments
I love the spelling error
That's the breast (sic) thing I've read all day.
well....
if I were the lawyer I would be careful not to use sentences beginning with the words "My Hyman"
Maybe it was the reporter and
Maybe it was the reporter and not the lawyer who wrote "my" hyman.
lawyer quote
i doubt the lawyer said "My Hyman" - I would think this was the reporter.
The Prescotts are not Jewish.
The Prescotts are not Jewish. This case was not about "bigotry". It was about violation of civil rights, nuisance and trespass. The racist and anti-semite actions occured, but it was the violation of civil rights and nuisance that cost the defendant money.
Bigotry has nothing to do
Bigotry has nothing to do with civil rights?
Why are these mutually
Why are these mutually exclusive? It was about the violation of civil rights and bigotry - like all hate crimes, this involved a crime partially motivated by hatred. And the fact that the Prescotts were not the victims of bigotry doesn't alter the fact that the Hymans were.
Bigotry not a claim
I was on the jury. Bigotry was not one of the complaints. Trespass, Nuisance and Violation of Civil Rights. Both plaintiffs were the subject of nuisance and violation of civil rights.
Hyman Defendants Motion for New Trial = bogus.
To those who want both sides, well I've published both sides, along with some solid legal reasoning right here:
http://christopher-king.blogspot.com/2010/07/kingc...
No other paper or media outlet has posted BOTH the Motion and the Memorandum in Opposition, so I believe I am within my Rights as a journalist to offer my observations on the matter.
-The KingCaster.
Well the judge just threw out
Well the judge just threw out your verdict. Why don't you do a little background search on the parties...your figure out that YOU got it WRONG!