Slashdot Mirror
Lawyer Jailed For Contempt Is Freed After 14 Years
H. Beatty Chadwick has been in a staring match with the judicial system for the past 14 years, and the system just blinked. Chadwick was ordered to pay his ex-wife $2.5 million after their divorce. He refused to pay saying that he couldn't because he lost the money in a series of "bad investments." The judge in the case didn't believe him and sent him to jail for contempt. That was 14 years ago. Last week another judge let Chadwick go saying that "continued imprisonment would be legal only if there was some likelihood that ultimately he would comply with the order; otherwise, the confinement would be merely punitive instead of coercive." Chadwick, now 73, is believed to have served the longest contempt sentence in US history.
As the judge apparently said "continued imprisonment would be legal only if there was some likelihood that ultimately he would comply with the order; otherwise, the confinement would be merely punitive instead of coercive."
Why is he getting out now then?
Not after 14 years.
They should also change 'ex-wife' to 'money grabbing bitch'
"Why is he getting out now then" and "He either cannot or will not ever pay up"
They are very good questions. All the links tend to give the same information, so I did some more searching and found this...
"The petitioner, Mr. Chadwick, has been imprisoned without trial for eight years in Delaware County, Pennsylvania for 'civil' contempt because he has been unable to deposit with the court $2.5 million in cash, funds which he maintains were part of an illiquid overseas real estate investment he does not control."
http://www.amatterofjustice.org/amoj/cases/chadwick3.htm
This news was from 2003, so its very disturbing if he has been held 14 years without trial?. Also surely they would know after 14 years the legal status of his overseas real estate investments?.
It seems the legal system and government suffers from systemic procedural bureaucracy so bad that its taken years more to final free him, but suffocatingly bad bureaucracy is no excuse to allow the legal system to behave the way we have been lead to believe only happens in police state countries.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
... I do not however have any problem at all with people being tossed in jail for however long for failing to comply with a court order. If we didn't allow that we'd have far less justice than we have now.
What if the order was confiscatory, as is apparently the problem in this particular case? If you don't have 2.5 million dollars to give to your ex, you are unable to comply, period. There should be at least some evidence that YOU DO have the money, not just some idle speculation.
This sort of thing scares the hell out of me, because I am in a divorce situation, and to think I could be thrown in jail for noncompliance with a confiscatory order for an indefinite amount of time!
I would rather have a non-functional "justice" system rather than one that does injustice to innocent individuals!
Wow, 14 years. If I were locked away for just a few months, I'd loose everything. I'd have nothing left. And as one who have been falsely accused more times than I care to think about, this deeply scares me.
But it would appear that many doesn't care that the (in)justice system does harm to innocent people. Oh, I know -- it "did something". Well, if that's what it's all about, time for me to check out of this country! I don't think even China would be that bad!
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
So you are sent to jail for not paying, but let out of jail if you can't pay.
He didn't go to jail for not paying. He went to jail for contempt of court.
He was getting divorced from his wife, and his wife alleged that he hid $2.5M in overseas accounts. He never contested the existence of the $2.5M, but claimed that he lost it all in bad business transactions.
The judge said, "OK, show me documentation of these bad business transactions or show me the money." He said, "No." So the judge held in in contempt of court, not as a punishment for not paying, but to coerce him into paying (or at least showing what happened to all that money).
The whole point of holding someone in contempt is not to punish that person--it is to coerce that person into complying with a lawful court order.
The new judge found that after 14 years, Chadwick was not going to be coerced into complying with the order by further confinement, so holding him in contempt could no longer be considered a form of coercion. At that point, holding him further would have to be considered punishment without a trial. And as you surely are aware, it is illegal to deprive someone of life, liberty, or property in the US without due process of law (see US Constitution, Amendments 5 and 14).
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
he could have had assets seized and been forced into work
Apparently, he shipped his money over seas just to avoid this issue: http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Should-He-Stay-or-Should-He-Go-Chadwick.html
Another blog I found claimed that he refused to sign papers that would have allowed the courts to conduct a proper search (which were probably needed since the money was over seas). I'm not linking to it, because it's just a blog.
All signs point to this guy just refused to pay. And it seems like neither you nor the judges involved had any good ideas to deal with him.
Under most circumstances, you can appeal a contempt order.
If a judge ordered you to provide something obviously ridiculous, your contempt conviction would be overturned by an appeal court.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Apparently, even as recent as his final hearing (in which the judge decided he was to be released) the imprisoned (who is himself an attorney) indicated he would not sign a power of attorney to allow the plaintiff (ex-wife) to confirm the money does not exist.
FWIW - I do have to say once the case went all the way to the supreme court and the guy *still* didn't comply - let him go (which is what finally happened but probably about 13 years too late).
Illiterate? Write for free help!
This isn't a criminal case. The guy DOES owe his ex-wife $2.5m. If he's not going to pay because he says he doesn't have it, then he needs to allow access to his financial affairs so that the court can see that he doesn't have it. To not do so is contempt and is imprisonable without charge or further trial. This is not a flaw of the system.
this would make a complete mockery of the protections that the Framers intended.
AFAIK Contempt is a common law principle you inherited from us here in the UK. Your framers would have been quite aware of it.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
This guy spent 14 years in prison based solely on the decision of a single judge, without any kind of trial.
Looks like two of his constitutional rights were violated. We have a right to a jury trial for any dispute involving an amount of money over twenty dollars.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Are you even aware that the violence committed between couples is split evenly between men and women? I'm sure feminist propaganda would have you believe otherwise, but if you knew anything about social psychology you would be shocked to find out women are perpetrators of severe violence just as often as men.
There is nothing for a jury to do.
Except convict him. There have been other cases in history where there was "nothing for a jury to do" and yet a jury verdict was still necessary. There have even been cases where the judge basically instructed the jury to return a guilty verdict because no facts were in dispute, and yet the verdict was still required.
If he doesn;t have the money he still oes $2.5m and needs to go through insolvency so that his creditors (including his wife) can be paid from what assets he DOES have.
Bankruptcy doesn't exist for the benefit of creditors - it exists for the benefit of debtors. Those creditors can pursue collection against his assets without his cooperation. He only needs to file for bankruptcy if he wants to be shielded from these collection activities.