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.
<

[Bonaparte]

"Yes, but the person making such a statement had best be prepared to be publicly labeled anti-Semitic."

Two more questions:

1) But not criminally charged (with a "hate" crime) for holding an unpopular or unattractive opinion?

and...

2) Did the Quigleys make their remarks in public or did they make their remarks with expectation of privacy?

[VaGunGuy]

It sounds like the ADL went whole-hog to destroy people they viewed as their enemies through smear tactics, using criminally obtained "evidence".

As such, I have a hard time feeling sorry for them.

[Boot Hill]

"The source is clearly identified as:...Jewish News of Greater Phoenix..."

And what? We are just supposed to take you word for that? If you can provide the quotes, then you can provide the link. Where's the link?

And if you had this information all along, why, as the person that originated this thread, why did you wait till now to post those quips and why did you not post it at the top? And by that, I mean post the whole thing and with a link?

--Boot Hill

[VaGunGuy]

that depends on if they expected their neighbors to tap their phones in violation of the law, doesn't it?

[Boot Hill]

"Why?"

Work on it. Study it. I'm sure you can figure this out with help.

--Boot Hill

[Lazamataz]

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

That's pretty Jewish of them.

[Boot Hill]

"Wiretapping in violation of the statute IS criminal."

According to the story is was not criminal till five days after the recording began.

--Boot Hill

[per loin]

OMG, beat me with a wet noodle!

No thanks. I'd prefer to just have you admit your errors the first time they are pointed out to you, (and thank the one pointing them out to you) rather than first deny the error, and then attempt a smart alec remark.

[Boot Hill]

"The courts unanimously disagree with you...."

It took you 39 posts to figure that out?

--Boot Hill

[VaGunGuy]

The operative word there being "began"...Notice they didn't say it ENDED before the law took effect, which means it was criminal.

If I sell a drug called qwerty, and they pass a law making qwerty illegal but I continue to keep selling it, doesn't that put me in violation of the law? There's no grandfathering of surreptitious interception of verbal communication...

[VaGunGuy]

Hey, bud....YOU'RE the one claiming they were not defamed....just thought I'd point out the obvious to you, since you obviously know better than the trier of fact and the appellate courts...

[per loin]

Google is your friend. Learn to use it.

As to when I came across the quotes, it was after I saw you jumping to unfounded conclusions. I like to check facts before making statements.

[Lazamataz]

Pull up a seat
and have a drink.
You are better off here,
than across the street.

That doesn't rhyme.

It reminds me of a greeting card I saw this Valentines Day:

My dear, you are my life,
And of you I always think,
I love you so, my wife,
Like I love the word 'antidisestablishmentarianism"

[American_Centurion]

Boot Hill:"In other words, the Quigley's ARE anti-Semitic and skated on a technicality."

I say so what if they are.

Being anti-semitic isn't grounds to bring charges or sue someone anymore than wearing pink shirts is.

Unless their "anti-semitic" views were acted upon, and caused harm to someone, there is no need for government involvement or courts.

IMO the Quigley's aren't the kind of people I'd go to dinner with, but they were at least defamed by the ADL, at worst harrassed by Jefferson County by being "charged" with a "hate crime". Since when is thought or speech a crime? This isn't freaking Canada.

[Boot Hill]

1) Hate crime laws suck.

But since I've restricted my comments on this thread solely to the verdict in the defamation case, your question is a little irrelevant.

2) Not relevant to the question of defamation.

--Boot Hill

[Bonaparte]

Let me put it this way, BH: Do you engage in marital conversation with the expectation that you and your wife are being bugged or wiretapped?

[Boot Hill]

"I'd prefer to just have you admit your errors the first time they are pointed out to you"

And we know this is an error, how? Do you really expect us to just take your word for it, considering your continued refusal to post any link to your "source"?

--Boot Hill

[Lazamataz]

I hate all of you.

[Boot Hill]

"If I sell a drug called qwerty, and they pass a law making qwerty illegal..."

LOL!

--Boot Hill

[Bonaparte]

"...the trier of fact..."

...who awarded the Quigleys far more than they sought, an amount that (with interest) comes to roughly 1/3 if ADL's annual operating budget.