Evergreen Couple Portrayed As Anti-Semites Keeps $10 Million Judgment

The Denver Channel (ABC) ^

[per loin]

Evergreen Couple Portrayed As Anti-Semites Keeps $10 Million Judgment

Quigleys Sue Anti-Defamation League After Fight With Their Jewish Neighbors

POSTED: 6:23 am MST March 2,

2004
UPDATED: 9:51 am MST March 2,

2004
DENVER -- A jury award of more than $10 million to a former Evergreen couple portrayed as anti-Semites by the Anti-Defamation League will stand, after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it.

The decision on Monday means "this is the end of the case," said Bruce DeBoskey, director of the ADL's Mountain States Region.

The victors in the case are William and Dorothy "Dee" Quigley, whose lawyer, Jay Horowitz, described them as "extraordinarily delighted" with the news.

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision came without explanation, and DeBoskey said it was a disappointment.

"But through the entire process we have continued to serve the community," he said. "We do remain committed to our fight against hatred and racism and bigotry and extremism and anti-Semitism."

The fight was between the Quigleys and their Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candice Aronson.

The Aronsons sought help from the ADL in 1994 after overhearing the Quigleys' comments on a cordless telephone, a signal that was picked up by the Aronson's police scanner.

They said they heard the Quigleys discuss a campaign to drive them from the upscale Evergreen neighborhood with Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn and putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house.

Based on recordings of those calls, they sued the Quigleys in federal court, Jefferson County prosecutors charged the Quigleys with hate crimes and Saul Rosenthal, then the ADL's regional director, denounced the Quigleys as anti-Semites in a press conference.

But later authorities discovered the recordings became illegal just five days after they began when President Bill Clinton signed a new wiretap restriction into federal law.

The hate charges were dropped, Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 and two lawyers on the ADL's volunteer board paid the Quigleys $350,000 to settle a lawsuit.

Neither family paid the other anything, the Aronsons divorced and the Quigleys moved to another state.

Then in 2000 a federal jury concluded a four-week trial before Denver U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham with a decision the Anti-Defamation League had defamed the Quigleys.

The jury awarded them $10.5 million, which is now estimated at $12.5 million including interest.

DeBoskey said the ADL had set aside funds to pay the judgment if necessary.
<

[Boot Hill]

"No, the crack house arson analogy hits it right between the eyes."

That analogy is not the least bit relevant as it applies to the question of whether Quigley's comments were anti-Semitic or not.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

You're confusing losing with refusing to even engage you on your fool's errand.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"If they had acted on those thoughts....yes call them anti-semitic."

The words themselves were sufficiently anti-Semitic to deserve the moniker.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"Actually there is nothing in the article that positively identifies them as anit-semitic."

"They said they heard the Quigleys discuss a campaign to drive them from the upscale Evergreen neighborhood with Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn and putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house."

If that is true, that is more than enough for me to call the speaker anti-Semitic.

--Boot Hill

[xp38]

The salient point in all this is that when faced with charges of anti semitism nothing beats a good Jewish lawyer. This couple chose wisely. :)

[American_Centurion]

No you lost, you refuse to "engage" because you can't. You have no way to refute it and you know you have been exposed.

So just change your position and come to the side of reason, your argument is toast.

You know you lost. You're just too hard headed to admit it.

I can forgive you for that.

[zeugma]

I don't think I could bring myself to side with the ADL over anything. It's a sleazy orgamization that, if it ever had a positive influence, has long since left that far behind.

The ADL gives Jews a bad name. The JPFO, on the other hand...

[Boot Hill]

"No you lost"

LOL, maybe if you stomp your feet a few times you can make it come true.

--Boot Hill

[American_Centurion]

I can't believe that it took me this long to notice.

You state that the ADA didn't defame the Quigleys because you believe that they actually are anti-semitic.

You have proven the point of defamation in that you believe the to be anti-semites only because of the ADA's revelation of the Quigleys' conversations.

You don't even know them and you label them anti-semites, based on hearsay that the accusers had no business hearing, that is quintessential defamation.

[krb]

I am happy for the way this turned out. The couple who did those recordings was looking for a lottery win and they got bit on the ass.

[Poser]

"The only thing that saved the Quigley's is that the ADL's evidence was inadmissible in court. In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality."

I think the problem here is that they were charged, in court, with a hate crime for a private conversation. The ADL and the neighbors had no right to tape the conversation or publicize it. They may, in fact, be anti-Semites, but that isn't illegal.

Private conversations are supposed to be just that, private. The ADL is now painfully aware of that as are other would-be conversation tapers.

[Oztrich Boy]

The ADL was not justified in making any accusations relating to anything that was not publically expressed or acted on.

[mdmathis6]

So you are anti privacy and anti free thought.

You do deny your own vices by not admitting that you have had private thoughts that could get you into trouble if they are aired openly.

You know what...everyone is "anti- somebody" if we use your definition!

I am anti-Democrat and I will define my anti-ness by actively voting against them in the Fall. And may they roast in the Holocaust ovens of shame and defeat and may the ashes of their campaign literature be scattered and accursed for-ever, and may the Move-on web site be-forever Hacked and may the ghost of Clintons' dead dog haunt the Clintons and Terry McAuliff for-ever. May Louis Farrakan be buried in pig grease and may all self respecting Donkeys kick any Democrat they see in the Butt(donkeys are true conservatives after all). And may all RINO's grow donkey ears...and long noses!

There I admit it, I'm an anti-democrat...what a relief to be out of the closet, does some-body have a kleenex?("sniff")!

[cid89]

You did not read my whole post. Discussing that campaign does not mean they are anti-semitic. It means they didn't like those specific neighbors. Think about what you are saying because it means if you have ever said something derivesive about someone then you are racist, anti-semitic, hate white people or italians or whatever. Read my whole post, Don't take just the first sentence. There is a context.

[bk1000]

"how would you react if your phone conversations were intercepted and widely broadcast in violation of the law?"

I was under the impression that if one was on a cordless phone, then expectations of privacy were gone.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I'd say the ADL was in the right on this one, but lost on a technicality.

Unless I'm mistaken about the facts of this case, the Quigleys did not do any of the things they were alleged to have said on the phone. That means they could not be charged with 'hate crimes' since no crime had taken place. The only thing that had taken place was free speech protected by the 1st Amendment.

As reprehensible as these statements were...and as reprehensible as the Quigleys might be as human beings...there are laws against slander and the ADL was wrong and they'll pay the price for it.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

...the Quigley's actually made the anti-Semitic comments that were alleged they made...

So? Even being as bad as it is, isn't that kind of speech protected by the 1st Amendment? Even if the recordings were legal, how can one be prosecuted and convicted for verbalizing one's fantasies? How many times have we heard from law enforment officers, "Until an actual crime is committed..."

[mikegi]

Whether said in jest or in seriousness, the Quigley's comments about using "Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn and putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house", are beyond any doubt, anti-Semitic.

I agree with you. If you are going to make anti-semitic comments like these (which go far beyond things like "Jews love money", etc.) then you should expect to be called anti-semitic. Plus, these weren't simple comments (eg. "...money"), they were threats that could be put into action.

I think the Freepers supporting the decision against the ADL are missing a critical point: there is a difference between comments and threats.

[Boot Hill]

"So? Even being as bad as it is, isn't that kind of speech protected by the 1st Amendment?"

Yes it is (or should be), but it is not protected from someone else labeling such speech anti-Semitic. That is what the article was about, the results of the defamation suit brought by Quigley against the ADL for publicly calling Quigley an anti-Semite.

--Boot Hill

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

That is what the article was about, the results of the defamation suit

You are correct. In a very narrow vein as it pertains to the defamation suit.

My comments were addressing the initial actions and behavior of the ADL.