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.

Comments

Why didn't this happen sooner?

[afidel]

It's seriously scary that this guy was basically in debtors prison for 14 years! Wasn't it a bit obvious after say 6-12 months that the guy either didn't have the money or wasn't going to ever hand it over? I can't believe that the original judge thought it was fair and ok to keep this guy in jail for over a decade on the assumption (not proof) that he was lying.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[westlake]

Wasn't it a bit obvious after say 6-12 months that the guy either didn't have the money or wasn't going to ever hand it over?

If he has it - and refuses to pay - in jail he stays. You can't allow mule headed stubbornness to defeat the law.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, the guy should suffer forever because he made the mistake of getting married.

If this doesn't illustrate to men everywhere why getting married is a stupid idea, nothing ever will. You only have everything to lose by doing it. But no "she's not like that!" and "we're really in love and she'd never want anything from me!". Then it all goes south or she cheats on you and decides she wants 50% of everything you have or ever will have and becomes vindictive and spiteful and you end up giving her $2.5m or spending 20% of your life in prison. All because she decided you needed to pay for all those years of pussy after all (sounds like a retro-active hooker to me).

Jut imagine how much more fun you could have had without any commitment and for far less than 50% of everything you'll ever earn? Man, I wish I were a woman. It's no risk and all gain!

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[brusk]

It's not a sentence for a crime, it's imprisonment for contempt, refusal to comply with a judge's order. They're fundamentally different things.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[kevinNCSU]

Wouldn't you be willing to do 6-12 months for 2.5 million dollars? That's a large chunk of change, it's hard to say how long a person would be willing to hold out to keep it. And once you've been in for a year your thinking well that would be a huge waste if I gave it up now, I'm sure they'll blink first and let me out soon.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Opportunist]

Oh yeah, because insane, out of sync punishment as deterrent works so well.

The RIAA sues for amounts that exceed anything sensible, did it stop people from copying? We outright KILL people if they killed someone else, did the killing stop?

If you want to fight crime, fight the reasons to commit it. Unless you're willing to do that, punishment will be no deterrent. It will serve as an act of revenge, it will serve as a tool to ensure the same person will not commit it again, but you will not turn anyone who didn't commit it yet away from it.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[MarkvW]

Nope. The guy SHOULD sit in jail. You can't defy court orders. If you can defy court orders, the system loses all of its terror and, consequentially, all of its power.

If the court loses its power and authority, then people will resort to self-help to resolve their legal problems.

Don't assume that social stability is always a given!

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[tsstahl]

I'm a judge. I order you to bend space time with your mind.

In 14 years there was no other way to ascertain if the guy really had the money? Really?

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Kotoku]

Because no likelihood that he would ultimately comply with the order exists. He either cannot or will not ever pay up.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Sique]

He didn't get into prison because he was convicted of withholding money, he was in prison because he didn't follow a court order. So the prison was to coerce money out of him, not to punish him for something.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

I don't get contempt. Why should judges have the power to imprison people at all?

By all means, make lying to a judge a crime. Then when somebody does it, they are charged with it, a jury rules against them, and then they are sentenced to a finite prison term.

Contempt of court essentially allows people to be imprisoned without the consent of a jury - that is just wrong.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

Does anybody else see this distinction as being rather weak?

IMHO, prison time should require a jury verdict to sustain it. I'm all for punishing people for perjury or interference with the functioning of the courts, but that should be a criminal charge like any other.

This guy spent 14 years in prison based solely on the decision of a single judge, without any kind of trial. That is just over the top.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm more bothered by the continuing concept that someone deserves massive amounts of your wealth simply because they married you.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

Refusal to pay and inability to pay are also two fundamentally different things. Assuming the guy is telling the truth (innocent before guilt), then his entire imprisonment was punitive and unjust. He did not have the 2.5 million before, but after some lawsuits he'll probably have it now. It is not contempt of court if he has no means to pay the debt. It will be the burden of the court to prove he had means and refused to pay. Otherwise, he was unjustly imprisoned and is due damages.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[gabebear]

I don't know how you can justify "civil contempt" being an offense where you automatically lose your personal freedoms. If anything, these judgments that seem to come from parallel worlds force people to seek self-help to resolve their legal problems. If the guy had just killed his wife he would have likely gotten out sooner.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B.F.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[lenkyl]

well for starters you don't jail him for 14 years.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Slashdot Parent]

Ok, so "stealing" $2.5M from your ex-wife carries a 14 year prison sentence, but robbing a bank of a similar sum probably carries a smaller punishment. How exactly is that just?

How is it that refusing to testify to a court should carry a lifetime prison sentence (if the judge feels so inclined)?

Oh, it's better than that. He could have beaten her to death and gotten a lighter prison sentence.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Whorhay]

That just shows that he was smart enough not to get caught committing a crime.

A judge should be able to jail someone and direct a prosecutor to file charges. Contempt of court should be a criminal charge that requires a jury conviction.

In this case the guy alledgedly committed perjury or fraud, maybe even both, but is held in contempt. If the prosecution can't prove it then he shouldn't be imprisoned.

What if you went to court and the judge demanded that you produce the secret moon rock presented to Mickey Mouse by Dirk Diggler the night of the Roswell "incident"? You obviously can't do what he asks, do you want to spend 14 years imprisoned until you do?

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

If a man claims not to have $2 million (and we assume that if he does he isn't stupid enough to hold it in bank accounts that can be easily traced to him), how on Earth do you prove he's lying "beyond reasonable doubt"?

Yeah, and it can be hard to prove that somebody is a terrorist as well. Does that mean that gitmo is a perfectly reasonable solution?

Yes, it is quite unfortunate that in order to convict somebody of a crime you actually need to have some proof. That is, it is unfortunate up until the point where you are accused of a crime you didn't commit. Then it turns out to be pretty handy.

If there is evidence the guy lied, then try and punish him. If there is no evidence, let him go. It is better to set the gulity free than to punish the innocent.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[hattig]

I have no problem with the concept that all assets earned/obtained within a marriage by both people should be split equally should that marriage end.

At the end, there should be no upkeep requirement from one party to the other.

At the end, assets each person had going into the marriage shouldn't be taken into account, but retained by that person (or the value of that asset if sold off during the marriage). There is an argument that if you get married after a long relationship, that relationship period should also count.

I.e., if you own five houses, then get married to someone with none, buy two more together then get divorced, you keep six houses (including your original five), they're yours, they get one.

The only ongoing support should be for children created in the marriage or adopted in the marriage, unless subsequently found out that someone cheated.

Also the sex of the person should not be taken into account. Cases should be submitted as person A and person B, the above should be fed into a computer, and a figure should come out. The arguments won't be about what each person should get, which is horribly weighted towards the woman, as if they're incapable of work or earning anything when they are, divorce law should come out of the 20th Century at some point. Instead they will be about what went in at the beginning. A pre-nuptial can override, but maybe a prenuptial should be mandatory anyway.

Burning loads of money after separation isn't an excuse, it's vindictive and silly.

And I'm sure the above, hastily written concept, has holes in it, so don't get pedantic on me.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rene S. Hollan]

The reason one can be jailed indefinitely for contempt is that one "has the keys to one's own cell", and by complying with the judge's order, they will be immediately released.

When I divorced, my ex could not buy me out of the house, but we wanted the kids to continue to live there. So, she got title (which, surprisingly, she never registered, presumably to not be on the hook for property taxes while I remained on it), while I remained responsible to the lender for the mortgage. Now, the divorce decree required my ex to make the actual payments. My relief, if she did not, was to have a [b]power of sale[/b] over the property, once I demonstrated that I was making the lender whole (making the payments).

Well, she never made a single payment, I sued, got that power of sale, and hired a real estate agent to sell it.

We lost two buyers in a falling market because my ex [b]refused to sign[/b] the agreement of purchase and sale (see, I could offer it for sale, but I could not sell it). I went back to court, seeking, among other things, a finding of [b]contempt[/b] for her ignoring the judge's order to cooperate with the sale.

She would be jailed if found guilty, until she signed, which she could easily do. (It's not clear, in this case, if the respondent could comply.)

In the end, she could have dragged the contempt hearings out for two or three visits ("I haven't got a lawyer, yet."), costing me close to $1000 every time we returned to court, and losing yet another buyer as we got close to winter. I agreed to drop the contempt charge in exchange for an irrevocable [b]power of attorney[/b] to sign the purchase and sale agreement in place of her, and the only matter left for the court to rule upon was the matter of the reimbursement of my legal fees (of which I recovered only a small fraction).

So, given that it's "obvious" that a defendant or respondent can comply with a judge's order, jailing for contempt is not the "big stick" it is made out to be, to be used against those that can't comply, as a "fast track" to imprisonment. It's no different than being held without bail until a speedy trial. In this case, respondent could have offered the defense that he can't comply. But, I gather that he chose 14 year in jail instead of making the legal case.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

However, in this case there doesn't appear to be any evidence that he can actually produce the property at stake. If you're going to put somebody in prison there ought to be evidence to back this up. If you have evidence, then you should have no trouble convincing a jury to back up the sentence with a verdict.

Contempt of court should be a crime exactly like any other crime. If you commit it then you must be charged and tried and a jury should decide your fate.

Otherwise if a judge is ticked at you they can basically toss you in prison and your only recourse is an appeal. If judges and appeals were so infallible, then why is it the right of every citizen in every civilized nation to be tried by a jury of their peers?

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Wowlapalooza]

Judges make decisions of law, juries make decisions of fact. If the judge thought this guy was lying about his financial situation, that's a decision of fact, and it's not his place to make it unilaterally, at least not in a way that results in the defendant's loss of liberty for 14 years.

I have no fundamental problem, conceptually, with the crime of Contempt, but if the penalty is incarceration, then it needs to follow the usual legal process, i.e. effective representation, presenting evidence in accordance with the usual rules of evidence, presenting testimony in accordance with those respective rules, opportunity for rebuttal, respect for the decisions-of-law/decisions-of-fact distinction, proper instruction/composition/integrity of the jury, etc. Also, the judge presiding over a Contempt trial should not be the same judge against whom the Contempt was allegedly perpetrated. That's such an obvious, flagrant conflict of interest it shouldn't even be considered as an option.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

You can appeal a conviction also. So, why do we need juries?

We need them because the power of the courts need to be held in check by the citizenry. It is not merely enough to have an avenue of appeal.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[C18H27NO3]

It is mind-boggling.
There was the story a few weeks ago about a guy that raped a 4-year-old and was sentenced to 1 year in prison.
This guy spends 14 years in jail because a judge just doesn't believe he doesn't have his wife's allowance to give.
People in power that don't have a shred of sense and ruin people's lives aught to be shipped off to a non-existant island somewhere.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[sjames]

So you're saying he was guilty of contempt unless or until he could prove otherwise? Something sounds wrong with that......

What's wrong is that a judge can actually give someone an indefinite sentence without any proof of guilt whatsoever All he has to do is call it "contempt" and petulantly pound on his desk with a hammer.

If the original judge actually HAD proof that the defendant had the money, he could have issued a court order to have it handed over to the wife. 14 years later, he apparently could not find 2.5 million or even a substantial portion of it in the defendant's name.

The only reasonable interpretations of this are that he did not have the money at all, and so was jailed for an indefinite time with neither proof of guilt (in fact, without being guilty) nor due process primarily because a judge personally didn't like him OR he has a sufficiently serious mental illness that he probably can't properly be considered responsible for his actions and certainly should have been in a mental ward rather than a jail cell.

I simply can't fathom that a person of sound mind could prefer to sit in jail for over a decade rather than turn over money that he had.If the report in the article that before being jailed, he rationed toilet paper are true, that can only support the idea that he is and was mentally ill.

It's posted as humor, but anything beyond a cursory thought about it suggests that something very UN-funny and UN-American has happened here.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[icebike]

Read the link I posted.

Contempt of court is not something you can file a motion and get out of. It is absolute unfettered power of one judge over any individual who pisses him off (inside or outside of his courtroom).

Further, there is no constitutional basis for it. It is a power simply usurped by the Judicial branch.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[afidel]

Exactly, recently a Cleveland Browns football player got 30 days for vehicular manslaughter (he got trashed and killed someone) and this guy gets 14 years for not having money to give to his ex, that's just a travesty of justice pure and simple.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[TerranFury]

Wow, you chose a bunch of silly "arguments" as your straw men. It's amusing to see someone list five ridiculous "questions" that no one would ask; rebut them; then say, "Q.E.D.!"

Yeah, kindasorta. But can you think of any better arguments against the idea? Because I haven't. And I thought these were the kinds of concerns people would have. Maybe not people on Slashdot, but people in general.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes no sense at all. In order for there to be a jury, something needs to be in dispute. In the case of contempt of court, there is nothing in dispute. He was ordered to pay, he didn't pay, end of story. No jury could possibly find any other way than he was in contempt. All of the evidence as to whether or not he had the money was presented already, at the original trial, and he was ordered to pay it. He already had his day in court. Now, if your assertion is that he shouldn't have had to pay because there was a mistake in ordering him to pay it, or that he didn't have the money, that is a different story. In that case, he could either appeal the original decision, or failing that, declare bankruptcy. He did neither, he just basically said to the court "I'm not going to pay, and you can't make me".

In your little fantasy world, where does that process end? If he ignores the first court order, and that automatically triggers a second trial, what happens when he doesn't like the outcome of that? Just ignore it again and expect another jury to hear the second case of contempt? In that case, we may as well abolish the whole legal system, because no dispute is ever going to be resolved by it.

According to your thinking, if someone is convicted of a crime and is sentenced to prison, all they need to do is escape from prison and that would automatically trigger a retrial of the original case in order for them to get sent back to prison. That is not how it works (I'm guessing anywhere in the world).

I am not sure I understand at all what you mean by your last sentence. Of course judges and juries can make mistakes, that is why there are appeals. What does that have to do with your right to trial by jury?

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[ScentCone]

If you want to fight crime, fight the reasons to commit it. Unless you're willing to do that, punishment will be no deterrent. It will serve as an act of revenge, it will serve as a tool to ensure the same person will not commit it again, but you will not turn anyone who didn't commit it yet away from it.

So in this case, where a guy was either hiding money from his wife, or refusing to show the judge any evidence that he lost it in the bad investments he says took away his $2.5 million, you're suggesting that society just needs to change the underlying problem? Which problem is that, exactly? That women getting a divorce are allowed to go after assets in the marriage? Or that the guy's quite possibly a dick? I see.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Martin Blank]

It is absolute unfettered power of one judge over any individual who pisses him off (inside or outside of his courtroom).

Contempt of court cannot be used by a judge on someone who is not violating a court order or disrupting court proceedings. A judge can't like the taste of his drink and find the server in contempt. If you're referring to indirect contempt (ignoring a court order outside of the presence of the judge), someone accused of contempt must be served and provided a hearing during which rebuttal evidence can be presented.

The ability for a judge to summarily punish someone in direct contempt has been upheld for a very long time. It's the only manner in which a judge can attempt to force the compliance of someone who would otherwise subvert the course of justice. It may have been abusive in this case, but calling it unfettered completely ignores the very widely-covered appeals to other judges and to appellate courts of contempt findings against journalists that withhold information.

I did go looking for information pertaining to this case, though. I found the following background from a ruling from the US District Court of Maine in 2003 (citations and mid-paragraph line breaks have been removed). In short, he moved money out of the country, it was returned, and then he fled the jurisdiction when told by the court that he had to turn over the money that had been shown to have been available to him. His accounts were then seized, he was arrested and imprisoned six months later, and his 14 attempts at appeal (at the time of the ruling) seeking his release have apparently all been turned down. (There goes the rest of your "unfettered" argument. Fourteen appeals is a significant quantity.)

In November of 1992, Defendant Barbara Jean Crowther Chadwick filed for divorce from Plaintiff H. Beatty Chadwick in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. During an equitable distribution conference in February of 1993, Plaintiff revealed that he had unilaterally transferred $2,502,000 of the marital estate to a partnership in Gibraltar, allegedly to satisfy a debt. After it was discovered that the Gibraltar partnership had returned approximately $2,000,000 to an American bank account and a Swiss bank account, both in Plaintiff's name, 2 and that $550,000 in stock certificates that Plaintiff claimed he had transferred to an unknown barrister in England to forward to the Gibraltar partnership were never received, the Pennsylvania divorce court determined that Plaintiff had transferred the money in an attempt to defraud Defendant and the court. In an order dated July 22, 1994, the state court ordered Plaintiff to return the approximately 2,500,000 to a court-administered account to be held in escrow pending further order of the court. The court further ordered Plaintiff to pay $75,000 to Defendant in attorney's fees and to surrender his passport; and the order enjoined him from further assigning and dissipating marital assets and from leaving the jurisdiction until further order of the court.

When Plaintiff did not comply with the July order, Defendant filed a Petition for Contempt and for Writ of Ne Exeat or Writ of Capias Ad Satisfaciendum. Plaintiff was personally served with a subpoena directing his appearance at a hearing on the petition, as was his attorney. Plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing, but he was represented by counsel. By order dated November 2, 1994, Plaintiff was found to be in contempt for willful violations of the order of July 22, 1994, and the judge issued a warrant for Plaintiff's arrest. Because Plaintiff had fled the jurisdiction, a hearing was held in Plaintiff's absence on August 29, 1994, after which the state trial court ordered his bank accounts frozen and directed all funds held in his name to be held in escrow pending final resolution of the divorce proceeding. In addition, Defendant successfully sought the attachment of two spendthrift trusts from which Plaintiff, as a life incom

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[icebike]

> and his 14 attempts at appeal (at the time of the ruling) seeking his release have apparently all been turned down. (There goes the rest of your "unfettered" argument. Fourteen appeals is a significant quantity.)

Say what?

That pretty much PROVES my point of unfettered.

If anything, it totally demolishes your claim of
"the very widely-covered appeals to other judges and to appellate courts"

14 appeals. Over 14 years. Why wouldn't the 13th appeal be just as convincing as the one that finally succeeded?

The judiciary closes ranks just as effectively as the police in many cases, especially in any case that seeks to question a basic judicial powers.

And your argument that "The ability for a judge to summarily punish someone in direct contempt has been upheld for a very long time" does nothing to resolve the constitutionality of the procedure. Upheld! By who? Congress? The Executive branch? A vote of the people? Who? Judges!

The fact that (surprise) Judges agree they have this power, where no constitutional provision of the power exists seems less than convincing to me.

Yes, I know, lawyers in general laugh up their sleeves at any appeal to the constitution. Still, I can't help it.

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[Rich0]

In order for there to be a jury, something needs to be in dispute. In the case of contempt of court, there is nothing in dispute. He was ordered to pay, he didn't pay, end of story.

Except, there was a fact in dispute - where he could pay. Additionally, I don't think that there are any circumstances where a man can be sent to prison for a long term based on a summary judgment without the ruling of a jury (or a guilty plea). That is - other than contempt.

In your little fantasy world, where does that process end? If he ignores the first court order, and that automatically triggers a second trial, what happens when he doesn't like the outcome of that?

Well, the second trial would convict him for a criminal matter - not a civil one. If he sentenced to prison they would just haul him off to prison - whether he likes it or not is irrelevant.

According to your thinking, if someone is convicted of a crime and is sentenced to prison, all they need to do is escape from prison and that would automatically trigger a retrial of the original case in order for them to get sent back to prison.

Hardly. There is already a conviction and judgment on their record, and they can be stuffed right back in prison. Now, if you wanted to charge him with escaping from prison so as to make him stay in prison longer, that certainly should require an additional trial.

My objection isn't the enforcement of judgments. If the plaintif can identify money then the court should order the account frozen and handed over. If the plaintif can identify property it can likewise be siezed. If the defendent refused to testify they can be charged and convicted and punished (if a jury of their peers agrees). Once a jury finds somebody guilty of a crime they can be sentenced, and most criminal sentences do not require cooperation from the defendent to enforce (when they do it is usually in the defendents interest to cooperate - such as when given a suspended sentence).

I'm not suggesting that defiance of court orders should be taken lightly. All I'm suggesting is that nobody should be placed in jail without the agreement of a jury of their peers. It doesn't really sound all that unreasonable, does it?

Re:Why didn't this happen sooner?

[BasilBrush]

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.

There's no need for a jury. This isn't a question of a crime that needs proving. That he is disobeying the court is a matter of record. It's a civil matter, compounded with contempt for not following the remedy instructed by the court. There is nothing for a jury to do.

Why is this slashdot worthy?

[Junior J. Junior III]

It's not like this is an RNO story. Chadwick wasn't imprisoned for taking a moral stand. Divorce isn't especially nerdy. What's the relevancy to my life that this story brings?

I'm not trolling, either; I just want to know if there's some angle that I'm missing.

Re:Why is this slashdot worthy?

[Aladrin]

He was imprisoned because the just -though- he was lying. No proof, just a judge's whim. You can't see how that affects you?

Re:Why is this slashdot worthy?

[BradleyAndersen]

Agreed. I can tell you first-hand that walking into Family Court or anything remotely like it (say, Divorce Court) with a penis is grounds for immediate imprisonment.

Re:Why is this slashdot worthy?

[e9th]

The next time a judge orders you to turn over the passphrases for your SSH/PGP private keys and holds you in contempt until you do so, it will seem very /. worthy.

Re:Why is this slashdot worthy?

[LordKronos]

but the only reason why I read this article was because I was curious what relevance it had to technology

Slashdot isn't "Technology news for nerds"...just "News for nerds". And before you jump on that, "nerd" doesn't just mean computer programming or whatever. Nerds have a passion for a variety of topics, and one subject I find they are often passionate about is civil rights/constitutional violations/etc. So open up your nerd horizons. Don't feel the need to be stereotyped into sitting behind your computer with a pocket protector and tape on your glasses. If legal rights isn't your cup of tea, that's fine...we all have our individual interests, so just pass on the story without posting. I promise I'll do the same the next time there's a Firefly story or something.

Re:Why is this slashdot worthy?

[DocSavage64109]

Maybe you should delete those files and all backups of them before the company sends hypothetical hitmen to murder you? I'd think sitting in jail would be one of the lighter hypothetical penalties you can come up with.

What a waste of taxpayers money.

[hattig]

I fail to see where the benefit is in keeping an old man in jail for so long, at taxpayers expense, is.

14 years? I've seen figures of $30,000 PA to keep a prisoner captive. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_cost_of_one_prisoner_in_the_U.S.

So we're talking $420,000 so far spent on this man. Instead he could have had assets seized and been forced into work, and paying tax, and having some money garnished. Or his actual money would have shown up after a few years when he thought people weren't looking.

It's not as if he was a danger to people on the street - the number one reason to put someone into jail.

What a surprise, a misleading summary

[93 Escort Wagon]

Lawyer Jailed for Contempt Freed After 14 Years

The fact that he was a lawyer has little relation the story - he could've just as easily been a baker, a banker, a doctor...

Re:He's just a stubborn liar

[Lord Kano]

Yes, he was a real asshole. The problem I have with this is that the legal system is supposed to be about what you can prove, not what you "know". You, the judge and I all know that this asshole isn't really broke. But if the judge and his ex-wife's lawyers can't prove that he has the money, then it's not right to hold him in a cell for so long.

LK

Re:Wow, life fail

[Eskarel]

Sometimes shit like this is necessary. I can't say whether it was in this case, because I don't know the details, but sometimes it is necessary. Personally, from what I've seen in the vast majority of cases where some millionaire divorces his wife and then claims poor, he sure as hell does still have the money and knows damned sure where it is.

There can't be a cap on contempt of court, because if there was, there wouldn't be any court. If I can get sued, lose, and basically say "fuck you, I'm not turning over that money" and just wait three weeks in jail, then what's the motivation for ever paying that money. You'd just wait three weeks and walk away free and clear without having to pay a cent. That's what contempt of court means,

This isn't an issue of trial or no trial, there was a court case, the divorce was a court case, he had ample opportunity within that case to prove he didn't have 5 million dollars(presuming a 50/50 split), he obviously failed to do so. Then the court case was decided, all nice and legal like, and he seemingly cried poor and said he couldn't pay. He again couldn't prove that, so they tossed his ass in jail. Contempt isn't something magical with no trial, and it's not generally the stuff you see on tv where someone just acts a bit like an ass in a court. This is failure to comply with a court order contempt, which is breaking the law. There doesn't need to be a trial on the contempt charge because quite obviously he is in contempt, he's been ordered by a court to do something, and he hasn't done it. It's a bit like being found guilty of murder and then saying, well I don't feel like going to prison. Only difference is they can drag your ass down to jail whereas they can't get back the money you hid offshore, so they do what they can to try and make you do what you should.

Realistically the only reason this old geezer got freed was because he was 74 and the judge reckoned if he'd put up with 14 years he'd put up with another 20 and they got sick of feeding him, not because he was innocent or anything, he's still presumably failing to comply with a legal court order and is so still guilty of contempt of court(since he won this great game of chicken, he presumably has even more contempt for the court.

FFS people, I know slashdot is largely male and largely single and full of contempt and bitterness for women and marriage, but whether or not you feel that a wife getting a portion of the families assets is right or wrong, if you let people refuse to follow the orders of the court you may as well scrap the whole system.

Let me fix that for you...

[Anonymous Coward]

You heard it here first: The US is a tool of terrorism

More reason to never get married!

[orsty3001]

I'll just keep reading sits like www.nomarraige.com and girllookslikeabitch.com. No seriously, before someone jumps down my throat for saying that. I think if I was this guy, I would have worked out some kind of deal with my ex-wife before I spent what could be the majority of my golden years in jail. I never understood why people want so much stuff from their ex, most of the time requiring that they have to stay in contact with them. I would understand if children were involved, but I've never wanted to see her again after it's over. Too much else to do in life.

Re:He's just a stubborn liar

[Roogna]

Actually it was a complete waste to ever stick him in prison. As others have said, let him loose, tax the hell out of him, garnish his wages, and make him pay what he owed. But sitting in prison has simply cost the tax payers money, prevented him from paying his owed debt by working, and potentially collecting the money he "hid". The judge was a fool in this case and accomplished nothing.

In fact this is a good example of why it's stupid to ever stick someone in prison because they owe money to someone else. It's far better to keep them out of prison, make sure they're working, and then collect the money owed. In fact, what are the odds that instead, they could have let him go, watched his bank transactions for a bit, then frozen his accounts and paid his debts? If he really did still have access to the money.

Re:He's just a stubborn liar

[mdarksbane]

Which means that he should have been tried in a court of law with a jury, and the prosecution should have had to prove that he did have he money.

Just because we think someone is an asshole should not mean we get to imprison them.

Truly Insane...

[flajann]

This is truly insane. There should be limits on how long a judge can lock you away "for contempt." Also, there should be some evidence that you have the ability to comply with the court order. What we now have is a system so broken that any judge, if he so wishes, can hit you with a confiscatory order and lock you away for years for "noncompliance".

This is NOT the type of country I want to live in. I would rather live in the old Soviet Union!

Re:He's just a stubborn liar

[Rich0]

Then when she sued for divorce he hid all his money in some offshore company and pretended it was lost in a "bad investment". It was a blatant lie. This guy deserves to rot in prison until he decides to come clean.

No, he deserves to be charged with purjury, which is the crime of lying under oath. Then a jury needs to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he did in fact lie. Then he gets punished per the laws passed by the appropriate legislative body (which probably won't include 14 year prison sentences).

People should go to jail for committing crimes. Crimes should be established by laws passed by legislative bodies. Whether somebody has committed a serious crime should be determined by a jury of their peers.

Re:He's just a stubborn liar

[superdave80]

"This guy is a real tool....This guy deserves to rot in prison"

Yeah, but what happens when some judge thinks you are a real tool, and deserves to rot in prison for 14 years? With no trial? No evidence? No jury?

Re:Wow, life fail

[squoozer]

The problem is you are saying he has to prove that he doesn't have the money. That's totally back to front. The other party should have to prove he does have the money. Making him prove he doesn't have something opens the system to abuse by his wife who presumably hates the guy because she left him to rot in a cell for 14 years (I'm assuming that if she waved the money the judge would probably have let the guy go).

Note that I'm not saying the other party has to know exactly where the money is just build a sufficiently good case that the money is still in some way under this guys control in one form or another.