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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-169 next last
To: Boot Hill
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...
51 posted on 03/03/2004 3:06:04 AM PST by VaGunGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.

52 posted on 03/03/2004 3:06:29 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
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"

53 posted on 03/03/2004 3:06:40 AM PST by Lazamataz (How to turn a 'Basher into a 'Bot: LET THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN SUNSET!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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.
54 posted on 03/03/2004 3:09:45 AM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
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

55 posted on 03/03/2004 3:11:42 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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?
56 posted on 03/03/2004 3:13:48 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"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

57 posted on 03/03/2004 3:14:35 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill; per loin; VaGunGuy
I hate all of you.


58 posted on 03/03/2004 3:14:55 AM PST by Lazamataz (How to turn a 'Basher into a 'Bot: LET THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN SUNSET!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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

LOL!

--Boot Hill

59 posted on 03/03/2004 3:16:41 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
"...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.

60 posted on 03/03/2004 3:16:42 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Maybe...except "anti semitic" comments aren't a crime, nor should they be.
The ADL thought they could say anything they wanted about this couple who may not have liked their situation but never actually did anything against the Aronsons.
Sorta like venting here.
61 posted on 03/03/2004 3:19:59 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"Google is your friend. Learn to use it."

Then since you're the one making the claim about your source, you should have no trouble posting the link....that is if your source is real.

(My billing rate is $200 per hour, if you insist on me doing your research for you.)

--Boot Hill

62 posted on 03/03/2004 3:20:17 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Ya gotta love hate speech laws. It's ok to say bad thing about Christians but not about Jews. Why is that? Are we still guilt ridden about WWII? Why should Jews get a free pass when they say something hateful? They shouldn't and maybe because of the anti-Christian bigotry displayed by Jews toward Mel Gibson's film, just maybe, America won't cringe in fear everytime some Jew cries "anti-semite." I can only hope.
63 posted on 03/03/2004 3:23:54 AM PST by FLAUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
"Not relevant to the question of defamation."

I said nothing about relevance to defamation. The ADL was also accused of other things...

    In their lawsuit against the ADL and its local director, the Quigleys charged not only that the ADL had defamed them, but that the Jewish group was supportive of the illegal invasion of their privacy through its use of the improperly recorded telephone conversations.
That is what my question to you refers to -- the illegal invasion of privacy.
64 posted on 03/03/2004 3:25:04 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
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"?

We? Us?

If you doubt the accuracy of my quotes, go to Google.com. Google is a search engine. A search engine is a tool for finding info on the net. When Google comes up on your screen, you will see a data entry box. A data entry box is where you enter data. In that data entry box enter the last (also called family) names of the two feuding families. (Those names are in the articles above) Within a second or so you will be presented with multiple articles on the case.

65 posted on 03/03/2004 3:25:39 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion
American_Centurion:   "I say so what if they are [anti-Semitic]. Being anti-semitic isn't grounds to bring charges or sue someone anymore than wearing pink shirts is."

And if I were arguing such, you might have a point. But since I haven't argued that, your point is irrelevant to what I've been posting regarding the reasonableness of the charge of defamation by the Quigley's against the ADL.

--Boot Hill

66 posted on 03/03/2004 3:30:33 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Did the Quigleys actually DO anything?
67 posted on 03/03/2004 3:31:32 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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?"

Questions like the above are irrelevant to what I've been posting regarding the reasonableness of the charge of defamation by the Quigley's against the ADL.

--Boot Hill

68 posted on 03/03/2004 3:33:17 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: FLAUSA
Yes. An oddity of our culture is that "victims" are accorded an allocation of "moral capital". But as is often the case when people are working with unearned capital of any sort, it gets frittered away. Once that capital is gone, the supposed victim status no longer collects interest. "Anti-semitism" has now been as thoroughly squandered as "racism" or "homophobia".
69 posted on 03/03/2004 3:34:32 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Nathaniel Fischer
The one thing here that makes me wonder about the facts of the case is that the county and the ADL board paid the Quigleys more than $400,000 to settle previous lawsuits that didn't even involve the defamation allegation. There may be more to this story that we don't know about.
70 posted on 03/03/2004 3:34:34 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Adder
"Maybe...except "anti semitic" comments aren't a crime, nor should they be."

Agreed, but since the Quigley's sued the ADL over defamation, and apparently not about hate crimes, why do raise that issue with me? My posts only have only been about the reasonableness of the charge of defamation by the Quigley's against the ADL.

--Boot Hill

71 posted on 03/03/2004 3:38:08 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Did the Quigleys actually DO anything?

Are you asking if they committed any overt anti-semitic acts, other than private phone chats? I've not seen that they did.

72 posted on 03/03/2004 3:38:18 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: VaGunGuy
There's also an interesting angle to the "admissability" of a recorded phone conversation that we seem to have forgotten about:

A recorded phone conversation could be admitted in court even if the recording were illegal -- as long as the police or prosecutor were not involved in the illegal recording. This was exactly what happened in the Lewinsky case -- the fact that one of the parties to the conversation may have recorded a conversation illegally did not preclude the use of that recording by a "disinterested" prosecutor who had nothing to do with obtaining the recording.

73 posted on 03/03/2004 3:39:07 AM PST by Alberta's Child (Alberta -- the TRUE North strong and free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
The Aaronsons clearly didn't just happen to overhear their neighbors' phone conversation and happen to have a tape recorder handy. They presumably were listening a LOT to their neighbors' conversations and were prepared to tape what they heard. Legal or not, I find that at least as offensive as what the Quigley's said, and I'll bet the jury did also.
74 posted on 03/03/2004 3:40:19 AM PST by docmcb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: per loin
All true but what is sad is that in the future when there is a real threat of anti-semitism, no one may listen. It's the old story of the boy who cried wolf too often.
75 posted on 03/03/2004 3:41:32 AM PST by FLAUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: FLAUSA
"Ya gotta love hate speech laws. It's ok to say bad thing about Christians but not about Jews."

The double standard you site is wrong and shouldn't be tolerated.

--Boot Hill

76 posted on 03/03/2004 3:41:35 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
"I said nothing about relevance to defamation."

Hence, my response to you. The issue of defamation is the only one I've raised in my posts. You want to discuss the invasion of privacy aspects of this case, while I'm only interested in discussing the defamation aspects.

--Boot Hill

77 posted on 03/03/2004 3:44:59 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
You claimed that the Quigleys "skated on a technicality". That implies that you believe that they should have been publicly proclaimed anti-semitic, and sued and maybe charged with a hate crime.

I have read later posts where you explained "hate crime laws suck", so I understand that you weren't implying they should have been charged. Still that doesn't reconcile your anti-freedom statement that "the Quigleys are anti-semitic and skated on a technicality".

They can say any darn thing they want in private (phone conversations have a reasonable expectation of privacy) and there isn't a think anyone can do about it.

IMO the taping of the conversations doesn't bother me one way or the other (regarding the timing of the law), even if the tapes were admissible the Quigleys didn't do anything that makes them civilly or criminally liable.
78 posted on 03/03/2004 3:46:04 AM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: docmcb
With most scanners that I've used, one has to input frequencies, or at least ranges of frequencies to scan. I agree that it sounds unlikely that the Aronsons just stumbled across the Quigley's conversations.
79 posted on 03/03/2004 3:46:31 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"If you doubt the accuracy of my quotes"

Post the links to your quotations or go fly a kite, your choice.

--Boot Hill

80 posted on 03/03/2004 3:46:49 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Forgot to add.

Based on my previous reply, the Quigleys were defamed.
81 posted on 03/03/2004 3:47:17 AM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Why are you reluctant to answer a simple question, BH?

Don't you agree with me that it's an outrage to surreptitiously tap, record and release the marital conversations of neighbors without their knowledge and consent?

82 posted on 03/03/2004 3:47:20 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: FLAUSA
All true but what is sad is that in the future when there is a real threat of anti-semitism, no one may listen. It's the old story of the boy who cried wolf too often.

Yes. That's what makes Abe Foxman and his crew such a despicable bunch.

83 posted on 03/03/2004 3:50:41 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
You've already defined yourself as one who I've no interest in further conversation with. Learn to look up facts for yourself.
84 posted on 03/03/2004 3:53:27 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: American_Centurion
"You claimed that the Quigleys "skated on a technicality". That implies that you believe that they should have been publicly proclaimed anti-semitic, and sued and maybe charged with a hate crime."

The highlighted portions imply no such thing. What I've been saying (not implying) from the start is that, in my opinion, the Quigley's should not have prevailed in their defamation suit against the ADL. From everything I've read here, the comments by the Quigley's were indeed anti-Semitic.

--Boot Hill

85 posted on 03/03/2004 3:53:59 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
"Why are you reluctant to answer a simple question, BH?"

Because it is not a subject I'm interested in addressing here. What part of that are you having a hard time understanding? The only issue that interests me here is the defamation trial, that this thread is primarily about. Please see the thread title for a hint. If you want to engage in side issues, feel free, but do it with someone who cares to address those issues.

--Boot Hill

86 posted on 03/03/2004 3:58:30 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
How do you feel about unreasonable search and seizure, BH?

Do you believe that practice should be made legal?

How about peeping toms, BH?

Do you think it's alright to peer into a couple's bedroom window at night?

Don't you wonder what other matters the Quigleys were privately discussing during these illegally intercepted conversations?

How would you feel about your neighbor wiretapping or bugging you and then revealing the substance of your private conversations in press conferences?

Would that be ok with you?

87 posted on 03/03/2004 3:59:20 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: per loin
after overhearing the Quigleys' telephone remarks on their Radio Shack police scanner.

Think Digital Spread Spectrum (DSS).

88 posted on 03/03/2004 4:01:00 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: per loin
"You've already defined yourself as one who I've no interest in further conversation with."

Translation of the above:   "I got caught sort of "ad-libbing" a few quotes here and there on this thread and since I don't have any links to back them up, I'm cutting and running."

Bye-bye!

--Boot Hill

89 posted on 03/03/2004 4:04:25 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
"...side issues..."

But it's not a "side issue," BH. Two types of criminal privacy invasion were directly involved in the plaintiffs suit against ADL. Defamation was only one of the charges and it arose out of the privacy invasion.

The trial jury thought it was relevant -- to the tune of millions of dollars in award. And after all ADL's appeals were exhausted, those awards were upheld. Of course it's relevant.

So why are you so unwilling to answer a simple question?

90 posted on 03/03/2004 4:05:17 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
I think they were defamed, because everyone has a reasonable right to private conversation.

Beliefs expressed in privacy, not publicly, may indeed be two-faced (hence why I wouldn't go to dinner with them) but are still private. Making public beliefs that have not been expressed or acted upon publicly is defamation.

This would be no different than outing a homosexual who wanted his/her sexual proclivities to remain private. To publicly expose their practices without consent is defamation when it has a negative effect on their public stature.

Being viewed as anti-semitic has even more of a negative effect on public stature than being homosexual does, hence defamation.
91 posted on 03/03/2004 4:07:01 AM PST by American_Centurion (Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime - Nicole Gelinas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
See post #86 for a clue to your answers.

--Boot Hill

92 posted on 03/03/2004 4:10:51 AM PST by Boot Hill (America: Thy hand will be upon the neck of thine enemies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Translation of the above: "I got caught sort of "ad-libbing" a few quotes here and there on this thread and since I don't have any links to back them up, I'm cutting and running."

OK. Let's see if you have yet learned the integrity to admit it when you are wrong: here and here

93 posted on 03/03/2004 4:11:16 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
I don't think DSS was available in 1994, but it could have prevented the whole dust up.
94 posted on 03/03/2004 4:15:07 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Oh, I already know that you're "not interested" in answering a simple question that has direct relevance to the matter at hand.

I'm just wondering why you're fighting this simple, direct, highly relevant question so tenaciously.

If you have no opinion on invasion of privacy, why not say so?

If you do have an opinion on the legally relevant question of privacy invasion, then why not state it?

95 posted on 03/03/2004 4:17:24 AM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: Boot Hill
Sorry...I must have been misreading this early in the am...I thought you were saying the ADL was justified.
96 posted on 03/03/2004 4:17:24 AM PST by Adder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: per loin
If you had a AN/TRC-173 it was. (What, you don't have one?)
97 posted on 03/03/2004 4:17:57 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets (Uday and Qusay are ead-day)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: wita

The enemies of Jesus need these laws in place so in the future when our children and grandchildren speak out against evil as they have been taught from the Bible, the secular authorities can arrest them for "hate speech." I will be gone by then, but it will be a time of great persecution for the children of God.
98 posted on 03/03/2004 4:18:34 AM PST by kittymyrib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lonesome in Massachussets
Nope. In fact I'm thinking of going back to a rotary dial. I miss that clickety-click sound.
99 posted on 03/03/2004 4:21:35 AM PST by per loin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: per loin
Exactly.

Nothing could better illustrate the potential danger to all our constitutional liberties from this Hate Crime madness than this wretched Quigley affair. Hate Crime legislation has so far proven to be a far greater actual threat and source of big brother abuse than the Patriot Act.

We all enjoy a constitutional right to be anti-semitic and not a few Jews exercise that right against semitic Arabs right here on this forum. Just because our birthright as Americans comes with a right to hate your neighbor on account of the accident of his birth does not mean that to exercise that prerogative is moral and right. But to prohibit its exercise, without accompanying action, is dangerous and unconstitutional.
100 posted on 03/03/2004 4:23:16 AM PST by nathanbedford
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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