SPLC Fails in Yet Another Effort to Attack and Destroy Public Advocate and Eugene Delgaudio
Federal Case filed by SPLC Lawyers Ends in Denver Colorado
Contact: Eugene Delgaudio, Public Advocate, 703-845-1808, email@example.com
DENVER, June 18, 2014 /Christian Newswire/ -- Public Advocate announced today that a federal case filed against it in the Fall of 2012 in Denver, Colorado by lawyers for the Southern Poverty Law Center ("SPLC") has been dismissed.
This lawsuit arose out of fliers mailed out by Public Advocate informing the public that two candidates for the Colorado state legislature were supporters of homosexual marriage. Those fliers were credited by many with the defeat of those two candidates. The fliers used an adaptation of a photograph of two homosexual males kissing, and those in the picture, and the photographer who took the picture, sued Public Advocate and were represented by SPLC lawyers.
In March 31, 2014, federal district judge Wiley Y. Daniel dismissed "misappropriation of likeness" charges brought by the two homosexuals. Once that victory was obtained, it left only the copyright claim of the photographer. That copyright claim by the photographer has now been settled on the basis of a "cost of defense" type settlement in the amount of $2,501. No payment whatsoever was made to the two homosexuals, who agreed to drop any appeal of the decision against them.
Eugene Delgaudio, President of Public Advocate, released this statement:
"The end of this litigation is a victory for Public Advocate and its supporters, as well as for me, my lawyers and for America. It has taken 18 months, but SPLC's latest effort to attack Public Advocate and me was unsuccessful.
"We had no objection to making a small payment to the photographer to end this litigation, but certainly were never going to make any payment to the two homosexual men who joined the suit, and whose claims were dismissed by the district court judge.
"Our use of the photo in the mailings was intended to expose the candidates who were trying to hide their support for homosexual marriage. We succeeded in that effort, and our use of a photograph owned by this photographer was unintentional. We felt no need to continue the case once the claims by the two homosexuals who sued us were dismissed.
"Of course, we had no desire to offend these two homosexual men, but once they posted on the Internet a picture of their 'wedding,' they entered into the public debate over homosexual marriage, and it was perfectly reasonable for Public Advocate to use the photograph.
"In one sense, Public Advocate continues to be proud that a left-wing organization as reckless as the SPLC has put Public Advocate on its target list of groups supporting traditional morality, which the SPLC curiously calls 'hate groups.' However, such targeting is a dangerous tactic, exposing Public Advocate to serious risk.
"We believe that the federal case in Denver Colorado was an attempt to crush me and Public Advocate with an expensive legal burden in order to divert Public Advocate away from defending traditional marriage. Our recent amicus curiae brief supporting traditional marriage in Michigan and exposing the lengths to which some federal judges will go to accomplish their own political agendas, shows that we have not been deterred. www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/DeBoer%20Public%20Advocate%20amicus%20brief.pdf
"Our supporters did not waiver and sustained us in this law suit and in all of our programs. I am grateful to each of you who donate and sign our pro-family petitions."
Links to documents relating to litigation in federal district court in Denver:
See link here for statement from Public Advocate on (First) DEFEAT FOR SPLC: Federal Judge Dismisses Claim.
Public Advocate entered a "final agreement" in which Plaintiffs Privitere and Edwards would waive their rights to appeal the dismissal of their Count II in exchange for Public Advocate's waiver of claims for costs and fees. This is the link to the final agreement.
The photographer, Ms. Hill, accepted Public Advocate's "offer for judgment" in this case on May 16, 2014.
The Court's judgment based on the settlement was entered on June 4, 2014, and has now been paid.