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

Skip to comments.

Evergreen Couple Portrayed As Anti-Semites Keeps $10 Million Judgment
The Denver Channel (ABC) ^

Posted on 03/03/2004 12:39:12 AM PST by 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.
<


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: Colorado
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

1 posted on 03/03/2004 12:39:12 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: per loin
The ADL is taking quite a kick in the keisters. Ouchhh!
2 posted on 03/03/2004 12:41:07 AM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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: per loin
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. Unless the news article is misrepresenting the story, I'd have to side with the ADL on this one.
5 posted on 03/03/2004 12:48:17 AM PST by Nathaniel Fischer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: per loin
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.

Gee, and they expect us to sympathise with them?

7 posted on 03/03/2004 12:55:09 AM PST by Nathaniel Fischer (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer
Gee, and they expect us to sympathise with them?

The prosecutors did, as did the courts.

8 posted on 03/03/2004 1:04:03 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer
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.
9 posted on 03/03/2004 1:06:35 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer
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.)

10 posted on 03/03/2004 1:28:15 AM PST by DentsRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: per loin
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

11 posted on 03/03/2004 1:32:26 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.

12 posted on 03/03/2004 1:37:11 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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?
13 posted on 03/03/2004 1:46:27 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | 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: DentsRun
especially when they break the law to get the "evidence"...
15 posted on 03/03/2004 1:47:46 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.
16 posted on 03/03/2004 1:51:50 AM PST by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: per loin
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

17 posted on 03/03/2004 1:53:59 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
"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

18 posted on 03/03/2004 1:58:20 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
"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

19 posted on 03/03/2004 2:02:40 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.
20 posted on 03/03/2004 2:03:17 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.

You are leaping to conclusions, rather than checking to see what the facts are. According to the Jewish News of Greater Phoenix, the ADL did not even listen to the tapes before publicly attacking the Quigleys. But the jury did hear the tapes before giving their verdict. From the above source:

The jury decided the alleged threats sounded more like private venting. Thanks to the tapes, though, the ADL was also found guilty of violating the Quigleys' privacy.

21 posted on 03/03/2004 2:06:16 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DentsRun
Bingo! Hate speech, not found in Constitution. Hate crimes, not found in Constitution. Only freedom of speech found in Constitution. So if we make a law regulating hate crimes, including speech, that trumps the Constitution. Just one more nail in the coffin, move along, folks nothing to see here, except don't expect the Supreme Court to back you up just yet. Hate crimes law is so off the map I don't know where to begin.

I question why anyone would seek such a law in the first place, unless there is an underlying agenda, and that is where I am stuck. How can someone be punished worse for a hate murder than a regular murder? The victim is dead, the perpetrator did it, and I'm supposed to feel better that we have discovered a motive involving hate, and that is punishable by death under the hate crimes law, and that death is far worse than the other death?
22 posted on 03/03/2004 2:11:18 AM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
The Quigley's are anti-semitic.

Quite a conclusion based on available evidence.

23 posted on 03/03/2004 2:18:35 AM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
longtermmemmory:   "they who?"

Ask The Rocky Mountain News, as indicated in my post, that's a quote from their article.

I took it too mean that "the recordings became illegal just five days after they [the Aronson's] began [recording them]."

--Boot Hill

24 posted on 03/03/2004 2:21:36 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop
"...taking quite a kick in the keisters."

From which they've learned nothing, as witness their accusations of anti-Semitism against Mel Gibson.

25 posted on 03/03/2004 2:23:09 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
From which they've learned nothing, as witness their accusations of anti-Semitism against Mel Gibson.

They have learned how to make the cry of "anti-semitism" as hollow as when Jesse Jackson cries "racism".

26 posted on 03/03/2004 2:25:44 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
on a lighter note, the motto of the Boot Hill saloon in Daytona Beach which is across the street form boot hill.

Pull up a seat
and have a drink.
You are better off here,
than across the street.
27 posted on 03/03/2004 2:25:51 AM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: per loin
per loin:   "You are leaping to conclusions, rather than checking to see what the facts are."

No, as I said in my first post to you:

"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
28 posted on 03/03/2004 2:28:07 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"From the above source:"

If you put a source or link in that reply, it didn't show up when posted.

--Boot Hill

29 posted on 03/03/2004 2:30:09 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Question: Do you believe any American has the right to publicly say, "I hate Jews"?

(Please notice that I'm not asking whether you personally approve of the statement in question.)

30 posted on 03/03/2004 2:32:13 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
You jumped to the conclusion that the tapes were not admitted into court. (See your post 17) But they were; the jury listened to them before concluding against the ADL.

BTW, that Rosenthal bozo from the ADL did not just call the Quigleys anti-semitic. According to the Jerusalem Post, despite never even having heard the tapes:

He accused the Quigleys of waging "a vicious antisemitic campaign." Later, in a radio appearance, Rosenthal described the feud as the worst case of antisemitism in Denver since the 1984 murder of radio talk-show host Alan Berg by neo-Nazis.

31 posted on 03/03/2004 2:36:47 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: wita
"Quite a conclusion based on available evidence."

So you think that...

"...the Quigleys discuss[ing] 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..."
is not anti-Semitic? Even if you believe that the Quigley's said those things in jest, do you really believe that when the Quigley's chose to focus on the Jewishness of there neighbors as something to attack, that was not reflecting a heart of darkness and anti-Semitism?

--Boot Hill

32 posted on 03/03/2004 2:39:15 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
If you put a source or link in that reply, it didn't show up when posted.

The source is clearly identified as:

...Jewish News of Greater Phoenix...

33 posted on 03/03/2004 2:39:45 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
"Do you believe any American has the right to publicly say, 'I hate Jews'?"

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

--Boot Hill

34 posted on 03/03/2004 2:50:33 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Why? Substitute any other group (homosexuals, crack dealers, whatever) than being jewish, apply the same facts, and you get an absurd result.
35 posted on 03/03/2004 2:52:02 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
But of course citizen, thinking thoughts not approved by the state is a serious crime, it must be stopped at all costs. (/scarcasm).
36 posted on 03/03/2004 2:52:07 AM PST by Proud_texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"You jumped to the conclusion that the tapes were not admitted into court."

OMG, beat me with a wet noodle!

--Boot Hill

37 posted on 03/03/2004 2:52:57 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
There's a slight difference between inadmissable in court and being obtained criminally. Hearsay is generally inadmissable in court, but isn't criminal. Wiretapping in violation of the statute IS criminal.
38 posted on 03/03/2004 2:53:41 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
The courts unanimously disagree with you....
39 posted on 03/03/2004 2:54:27 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
Thoughtcrime doubleplus ungood.
40 posted on 03/03/2004 2:54:56 AM PST by GodBlessRonaldReagan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
"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?


41 posted on 03/03/2004 2:56:57 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Proud_texan
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.
42 posted on 03/03/2004 2:57:51 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"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

43 posted on 03/03/2004 2:58:19 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
that depends on if they expected their neighbors to tap their phones in violation of the law, doesn't it?
44 posted on 03/03/2004 2:58:42 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
"Why?"

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

--Boot Hill

45 posted on 03/03/2004 3:00:08 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: per loin; goldstategop
Evergreen Couple Portrayed As Anti-Semites Keeps $10 Million Judgment

That's pretty Jewish of them.

46 posted on 03/03/2004 3:00:34 AM PST by Lazamataz (How to turn a 'Basher into a 'Bot: LET THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN SUNSET!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
"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

47 posted on 03/03/2004 3:01:30 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.

48 posted on 03/03/2004 3:02:00 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
"The courts unanimously disagree with you...."

It took you 39 posts to figure that out?

--Boot Hill

49 posted on 03/03/2004 3:02:26 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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...
50 posted on 03/03/2004 3:04:33 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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