By Cindy Mindell

GREENWICH – The Connecticut Jewish community has heard its share of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel rhetoric from Lisa “Lee” Whitnum, a Greenwich resident who has run for various elected offices since 2008. In her campaigns – one for Congress, two for Senate, and one for the Connecticut governorship – she has often spoken out against AIPAC, Israel and U.S. support for the Jewish state, grabbing headlines for what many view as the blatantly antisemitic nature of her strident comments. In 2008, after then-Stamford Mayor Dannel Malloy publicly accused Whitnum of antisemitic rhetoric, she unsuccessfully sued Malloy for slander.

In 2012, Whitnum filed a federal lawsuit against the Town of Greenwich and Greenwich First Selectman Peter Tesei for allowing Town Hall to be used by UJA Federation Greenwich (now UJA Greenwich) for its annual Israel Independence Day celebration, which included ceremony to mark the bar mitzvah of Israeli Young Emissary Aner Shofty. Whitnum claimed that the Town had violated her First Amendment rights.

Last week, the Greenwich Time reported that Whitnum had offered to settle the lawsuit for $11,000, but the Board of Selectmen formally rejected the offer after meeting with the town’s counsel.

According to the Time, Whitnum claimed that photos and videos on display at the May 2011 event were “promoting an explicitly religiously Jewish and politically Zionist world view,” and that she experienced emotional distress at the sight of an Israeli flag because her father had served as a British Mandate for Palestine officer in Jerusalem when the King David Hotel was bombed. According to the Time, she also claims that fellow Greenwich residents might have the same reaction, as Christians and Muslims were forced out of Palestine to make room for European and American Jewish immigrants.

Whitnum further claims in the lawsuit, “To any reasonable observer, the Greenwich Town Hall functioned as an arm of the local synagogue and did so in a manner that is clearly prohibited by the United States Constitution. The government is, to all appearances, endorsing the explicitly religious message of a particular religion which is aimed at, and offensive to, persons who choose to hold different beliefs.”

She also asks for an injunction preventing future Israel- and Jewish-themed events, claiming, “The defendant’s flagrant disregard sent the message to the plaintiff that Jews are afforded preferential treatment. As a non-Jew, plaintiff felt unwelcome, excluded and like an outsider. The message sent by defendants was that it is not OK to have a Christian cross or nativity scene at a municipal site but it is OK to hold a bar mitzvah on municipal property.”

The case – one of 12 ongoing lawsuits filed by Whitnum in Connecticut – is now before the United States District Court in Bridgeport, with a court date yet to be scheduled.

Westport-based media and entertainment lawyer Alan Neigher says that Whitnum’s claims do not appear to have any substantial merit. (Neigher has no connection to or involvement with the pending lawsuit.)

“Towns all over Connecticut and throughout the country have ethnic and nationality days – St. Patty’s Day, Puerto Rican Day, salutes to Israel occur all the time,” he says. “This is not the ‘establishment’ of a religion, which is the designation by a government of a preference for a particular faith, which is specifically forbidden under both the First Amendment to the federal Constitution and by the Connecticut Constitution.”

As to Whitnum’s objection to using Town Hall as the venue for a religious ceremony, “if the Town hung a cross, a Buddha, or a menorah over the entrance of Town Hall as a designation of an official religious preference, that would violate the separation principles,” Neigher says. “A bar mitzvah at a town hall, a wedding at the town beach, a memorial service in a school auditorium – none of these incidental uses of a town facility offends the separation principle of the First Amendment.”

Finally, Neigher points out that Whitnum’s objection to the display of an Israeli flag at Town Hall holds no legal weight.

“That Ms. Whitnum is claiming some isolated event that her father witnessed in 1946 or 1947 as a basis for ‘emotional distress’ whenever she sees an Israeli flag is too ludicrous to discuss in depth,” he says.

“No court will recognize this as a basis for compensable emotional distress, certainly not without expert medical testimony, which she will be unable to provide.”

UJA Greenwich executive director Pam Ehrenkranz declined to comment on the pending case.

CAP: Lee Whitnum took to the streets of Connecticut in 2012 to campaign against AIPAC.