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.
<

[goldstategop]

The ADL is taking quite a kick in the keisters. Ouchhh!

[squidly]

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

[per loin]

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

That's the impression that this particular article leaves. I'll hunt up a fuller one, which leaves a very different impression.

[per loin]

>ADL must pay in Evergreen case

Denounced as anti-Semites, pair is owed millions

By Karen Abbott, Rocky Mountain News
March 2, 2004

The Anti-Defamation League must pay a former Evergreen couple it denounced as anti-Semites more than $10 million, after the U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to review the lawsuit.

"This is the end of the case," said Bruce DeBoskey, director of the league's Mountain States Region, which includes Colorado and Wyoming.

Advertisement

Denver attorney Jay Horowitz, who won the case for William and Dorothy "Dee" Quigley, said the couple was "extraordinarily delighted" when he told them the news Monday.

The widely publicized court battle drew friend-of-the-court briefs from a variety of national advocacy organizations worried that the danger of huge legal liabilities threatened their ability to work for good causes.

"There were 15 other human rights organizations that filed briefs in support of our legal position," DeBoskey said.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not explain why it declined to review the case.

"We're all disappointed," DeBoskey said. "But as a practical matter, through the entire process, we have continued to serve the community."

"We do remain committed to our fight against hatred and racism and bigotry and extremism and anti-Semitism," he said.

The dispute that raged for nearly a decade through the federal courts began when the Quigleys' dog fought with a dog owned by their Jewish neighbors, Mitchell and Candice Aronson, in their upscale foothills neighborhood.

The Aronsons called the ADL in 1994, after overhearing the Quigleys' telephone remarks on their Radio Shack police scanner. They said they heard the Quigleys discuss a campaign to drive them from the neighborhood with Nazi scare tactics, including tossing lampshades and soap on their lawn, putting pictures of Holocaust ovens on their house and dousing one of their children with flammable liquid.

The Aronsons were advised to record the conversations. Based on the recordings, 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 news conference.

The Quigleys got death threats and hate mail.

Later, everyone found out that the recordings became illegal just five days after they began, when President Clinton signed a new wiretap restriction into federal law.

The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest. Two lawyers on the ADL's volunteer board, who had advised the Aronsons, paid the Quigleys $350,000 to settle a lawsuit.

The Quigleys and Aronsons dropped their legal attacks on one another, and neither family paid the other anything. The Aronsons divorced. The Quigleys moved to another state.

But a federal jury found in 2000, after a four-week trial before Denver U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham, that the Anti-Defamation League had defamed the Quigleys. The jury awarded them $10.5 million.

The ADL appealed, and the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that the jury's award stood.

DeBoskey said the long legal proceedings allowed the ADL to set aside funds to pay the judgment if necessary. Some the money will come from insurance and some will come from other sources, including donors, but none will come from the ADL's operating budget, DeBoskey said.

Horowitz estimated the judgment now totals more than $12.5 million, once interest is included.

He said the Quigleys suffered greatly because they were branded as anti-Semites. William Quigley's career in the motion picture industry was virtually destroyed, Horowitz said.

"They cannot express how life-altering the ADL's actions have been," Horowitz said.

The Quigleys' children were affected because "they grew up during some of the most trying circumstances of this case," he said.

At one point, the family hired bodyguards. They received a box of dog feces in the mail. Their own Catholic priest criticized them from the pulpit.

[per loin]

Gee, and they expect us to sympathise with them?

The prosecutors did, as did the courts.

[VaGunGuy]

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

In case you missed it, the people recording the conversations committed a crime by recording them. "Oops".

The ADL released the illegally gathered conversations publicly at a freaking press conference. "Oops."

Frankly, the recording couple are lucky they weren't criminally prosecuted.

[DentsRun]

That seems quite harsh considering that the recordings were legal when they were started (it's not like they advertise when they pass these laws) and the accusations were true.

As I understand the case the Quiglies never did anything to their Jewish neighbors. What they did was fantasize about what they'd like to do over the telephone in private conversations with each other. And that's all they were--private revenge fantasies. Yet when their conversations were recorded they found themselves slandered in court and charged with hate crimes. (I still can't get over the notion that one can be charged with a hate crime just for venting your frustration and/or opinion. If the First Amendment protects anything, it surely ought to protect that.)

[Boot Hill]

per loin:   "I'll hunt up a fuller one, which leaves a very different impression."

OK, so you posted "a fuller one", but where is the "very different impression"? It too, leaves one with the same impression that the ADL was right, but lost to the Quigley's only on a technicality regarding the admissibility of evidence.

Here is what the back-up story you posted in #6 says:

The RMN reports:   "Based on the recordings, they sued the Quigleys in federal court, Jefferson County prosecutors charged the Quigleys with hate crimes..."

And according to both articles, the only thing that saved the Quigley's was this:

The RMN reports:   "Later, everyone found out that the recordings became illegal just five days after they began..."

So according to both articles you posted, the Quigley's actually made the anti-Semitic comments that were alleged they made, but skated on a technicality regarding the admissibility of the evidence.

I'm no fan of the ADL, but unless there is something more to the story that we're not hearing about from these articles, it looks like the ADL was the good guys in this matter.

--Boot Hill

[per loin]

OK, so you posted "a fuller one", but where is the "very different impression"?

From the second one:

The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest.

[VaGunGuy]

Hmmmm....There's a crack house across the street from me. My wife and I often talk about it. Sometimes, in jest, we joke about burning it down. We're not serious, we're joking. It's in bad taste, sure, but so is operating a crack house nearby when you and your neighbors have kids.

Let's say that the crack neighbors bugged our house or tapped our phones in violation of the law. Then let's say that the crack dealer's union got into it, called a press conference, told our neighbors that we were anti-crack arsonists, and we lost our jobs over it.

Does the fact that we joked about the crackhouse mean that they have a right to destroy our lives and livelihood by defaming us in public using the fruits of a criminal act to do it?

[marty60]

Sometimes it's better to leave things to the cops , rather than turn it into a media event. It doesn't work. It has been tried over and over, even with Mel Gibson.

[VaGunGuy]

especially when they break the law to get the "evidence"...

[saradippity]

One thing I noticed was that the offensive communication occurred and was reported before the tapes were used. We really don't know what was actually on tape. Somehow I would think that if what was taped was equally offensive it would have been cited.

[Boot Hill]

per loin:   From the second one:
"The hate charges were dropped, and Jefferson County paid the Quigleys $75,000 after prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest."

The only difference between that sentence and the nearly identical one in the first article is the addition of the phrase "prosecutors concluded Dee Quigley's remarks to a friend were only in jest". That may be fine from a criminal standpoint, but the Federal lawsuit against the ADL only involved the question of whether the Quigley's were defamed when they were publicly labeled anti-Semitic by a director of the ADL.

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.

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.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"Then let's say that the crack dealer's union got into it, called a press conference, told our neighbors that we were anti-crack arsonists..."

Your analogy is just plain goofy, too goofy to take seriously or even respond to.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"Somehow I would think that if what was taped was equally offensive it would have been cited."

Read the article again, it was cited. Here it is.

"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."

That kind of talk is anti-Semitic, whether said in jest or in all seriousness. The Quigley's were clearly not defamed by being labeled anti-Semitic.

--Boot Hill

[longtermmemmory]

after THEY began...

they who? The prosecutors began their case and five days after the case began they discovered the tapes were illegal? Did these people acutually follow through on this bizzare campaign?

There are two issues here: one is the alleged threat campaign that was dropped based on whatever seperate merits there.

THE SEcoND case is whether somebody can stand in public and accuse anyone with impunity of being a Nazi. This is a good case for being against the leftist tactic of making all opponents "nazi" or "anti-semetic" or anyother scaremongering.