Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: goldstategop
I'd say the ADL was in the right on this one, but lost on a technicality.
3 posted on 03/03/2004 12:43:16 AM PST by squidly (Money is inconvenient for them: give them victuals and an arse-clout, it is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: squidly
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.

4 posted on 03/03/2004 12:46:57 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: squidly
>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.

6 posted on 03/03/2004 12:49:24 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: squidly
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.
14 posted on 03/03/2004 1:47:21 AM PST by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: squidly
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.

136 posted on 03/03/2004 7:00:34 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Do a little dance...make a little love...get down tonight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

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

I think evidence of what was said came in, but not in the form of the tapes. Without some sort of evidence of the conversation (e.g., "I overheard those people say ..."), there is no case whatsoever. Nothing. One of the linked articles says that the jury expressed an opinion regarding what was said -- I think the jury's comment was something like "the comments seemed more like joking."

The ADL stepped on their own crank, in the jury's judgement. Now, if the plaintif couple is in fact anti-Semitic, then the ADL and everybody else is free to go out and state that fact, and there will be no risk of civil liability. None!

159 posted on 03/03/2004 3:29:18 PM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson