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.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This judge should be removed from the bench, and perhaps prosecuted for doing this to this man. 14 years! WTF?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
And this is yet one more reason why the government shouldn't be giving people marriages. Anyone. Gay or straight. There's no reason to regulate marriages -- which are a religious institution and personal committment -- in any way, whatsoever. If there are financial things attached to a marriage, they should be handled as a private contract like anything else. And with the contractual obligations of marriage made explicit rather than existing in the legal code, I think this kind of garbage would end -- because two people in love wouldn't make each other sign grossly unfair contracts.
It's funny: I'm not particularly libertarian. I like government to do stuff. But I'm pretty staunchly libertarian on this because it seems like such a personal issue, and such an intrusion of government into the intimate parts of our lives which are simply not other people's business.
Some hypothetical questions and answers:
"Doesn't this mess up taxes?" Why does it need to? If someone is a dependent, it shouldn't matter why from the government's point of view.
"But what if an 80-year-old wants to marry a 10-year-old girl?" Then he's committing statutory rape. We don't need separate laws.
"But what if someone with AIDS marries someone without it? Shouldn't we require that people be tested?" Do we require government certification of sex partners in any other context?
"Don't we need a way to understand 'who is a couple' for adoption purposes?" Is it currently illegal for single people to adopt children? Or to raise children?
"But what about bigamists? Polyamorists?" The government doesn't snoop in people's homes to keep polyamorists from living together. Why should it care if people decide to make these kinds of arrangements long-term and official?
The end. That's what I think.
The solution is to charge you with a crime (for refusing to comply with the court order, etc) THEN throw your ass in jail. It's not ok that a judge can sentence someone to jail for an indefinite period without a trial and conviction. The current system is enabling judges to be assholes.
Yup, to intentionally lose all your money in bad investments is spiteful enough, then you realize this was 14 years ago, BEFORE the current economic downturn or the dotcom crash. That must have taken effort!
Of course, his ex-wife is the judge who sent him to jail for it, so there's a lot of hate on both sides.
How? The judge can't hire a private eye and an accountant to get to the bottom of every divorce case out there.
And they aren't supposed to.
The other side in the case _can_ do all those things. In fact, they should do all those things. Before a trial there is a period of time called discovery. As you would assume, it is the time to for both sides to discover stuff about the other side.
IANAL, and all that; nor do I know any specifics beyond what we have all read here. It is my belief that this guy is a 'victim' of assumed knowledge.
This guy being a lawyer, you can assume he has a lucrative career. You can further assume that he has the knowledge and ability to utilize shelters, loopholes, whatever to hide wealth.
The usual recipe is that the other side claims it can't find anything because he is hiding it so well. Based on the accusation and assumed knowledge, the judge believes this to be true absent any sign of the money. The guy gets to spend some time in the crossbar motel mulling over his stratagems.
Maybe the guy is a pig headed fool; maybe he is flat broke. Regardless, FOURTEEN YEARS FOR CONTEMPT IS A CRIME AGAINST SOCIETY.
Let's make it not so hypothetical. Some years ago, a friend came by and gave me some .doc & .xls files to hang on to. He told me he was suspicious that there was massive fraud going on at his employer, and that if he died under strange circumstances, I should go to the police. Meanwhile, he would continue to look for absolute proof. I copied them, then used gpg to encrypt them. His wife was aware that I had copies.
Not too long after that, he was diagnosed with cancer and died a few months later. I didn't have the heart to ask him, "Hey, since you're dying of natural causes, is it okay if I delete those files?" Anyway, this was over 5 years ago, and I haven't though about them until I saw this article. I have no idea what passphrase I used when encrypting the files.
The above is all true. Now I'll be hypothetical. Suppose his former company really did come under suspicion of fraud, and his widow told investigators that I had copies of his files. A SWAT team breaks in, confiscates all my computers & backups, because they may contain "important evidence."
Now here is me in court.
Judge: Sir, we can't read those documents that Mr. X gave you. Please give us the keys.
Me:Your Honor, I'd love to, but I just can't remember them.
Judge: I don't believe you. Bailiff, take him away.
There's no 5th amendment issue, since the files can't incriminate me. In essence, I would have to prove that I had forgotten the keys, or sit in jail waiting for the judge to have a change of heart.
Because contempt of court doesn't work the same way as criminal charges for assault or rape or any other crime. A contempt of court charge is the Judge's ultimate method of enforcing order in the courtroom.
Was this an abuse of the power to hold people in contempt of court? Absolutely.
The power of a judge to keep his court orderly, however, is of utmost importance to the continued functioning of our legal system. Furthermore, the man obviously was telling the court to fuck off. I am sure he could have proved he didn't have the money. I can't imagine him losing 5 million dollars and not being able to show just how he pissed it away. And I don't see a lawyer not keeping legal paperwork to cover his ass in this instance.
Thus, I conclude that he was telling his ex-wife, via the court system, to fuck off. I don't admire him for treating our court system with contempt, but I have to say the man has balls of steel if he is willing to go to prison for 14 years all for the sake of spite. Maybe not wise, but definitely very ballsy. I can even see the conversation in prison.
"What are you in here for."
"I got a couple of million stashed in offshore holdings and was willing to go to prison rather than let my bitch of an ex-wife have a penny of it."
"Well, shit, I don't blame you. My ex-wife was a bitch too. That's why I stabbed her with an ice-pick."
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
Except you ignore the true ways marriage is used/abused and instead make up some wacky questions.
Marriage changes certain rights a person has, and allows legal claims that arose because of abuse, not the other way around:
- Would we allow families to marry off their daughter to older men in return for payment?
- How would monetary issues, property ownership, health care coverage, duties of care for minors, and land transfers be regulated? Would a couple participate in both, but would we need the proof of identity in each transaction?
- If a crafty husband walks out on his family and 4 kids, leaving nothing for them, would any crime have been committed?
Overall, if the government didn't have a single record of which 2 people were married, many of the crimes we prosecute now would get mired down in claims without more than testimonial evidence. It doesn't seem like it would simplify anything, to me.
>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?
.02.
I wouldn't call it a "judges whim". A judge, in a court of law, ordered a plaintiff to comply with an order, i.e.
"Show me the money or show me the proof you lost the money"
An answer of "No" isn't either A or B. You are in contempt of a direct order from a judge of the court. He could have either produced the proof, even if it was a letter from a business partner saying "We lost all of our money in an investment" and "heres the business bank account showing a 0$ balanace". Done. End of contempt.
If a judge issues an order, in this case, an order that is absolutly in line with the judgement against the plaintiff, that is, you have to pay, and you do not comply, you are in contempt of court.
The definition of "contempt of court":
Behavior in or out of court that violates a court order, or otherwise disrupts or shows disregard for the court. Refusing to answer a proper question, to file court papers on time or to follow local court rules can expose witnesses, lawyers and litigants to contempt findings. Contempt of court is punishable by fine or imprisonment.
In this case, he won't show the money, so a fine is inappropriate. The alternative was improsonment. This makes absolutely perfect legal sense. The fact that the guy chose to stay in jail for 14 years rather than produce the evidence tells me he is a complete and utter imbecile and deserved the time out of the gene pool.
My
Armaments, 2-9-21 And Saint Attila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'O Lord, bless this Thy hand grenade' N
No evidence is required. The fact that he owes $2.5m is not in contention. If he says he can't pay then he's bankrupt. He needs to go through bankruptcy proceedings to follow through on that. And the ex-wife would then get in line for a share of what he does own. That he does not either pay or go through with bankruptcy is contempt. No "belief" or evidence is needed.
I had a friend who got divorced and his wife (who had left HIM, incidentally), had his dog put to sleep. I bullshit you not. Divorcing women can be vicious and spiteful in ways that men never even DREAM of.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Marriage changes certain rights a person has, and allows legal claims that arose because of abuse, not the other way around:
It shouldn't change anything; that's the point. The legal status of two people who are married should be no different to the legal status of any other two people who are dependents (e.g. cohabiting partners).
Would we allow families to marry off their daughter to older men in return for payment?
Before I answer the question, remember that this happens anyway, whether or not the system permits it.
Now: If their church (or whatever other marriage-issuing authority they chose) permitted it, yes. This would, however, be completely meaningless as the person forcibly married could simply choose to ignore the marriage if they desired.
- How would monetary issues, property ownership, health care coverage, duties of care for minors, and land transfers be regulated? Would a couple participate in both, but would we need the proof of identity in each transaction?
The same way they are for cohabiting partners at the moment. Quite simple, really.
If a crafty husband walks out on his family and 4 kids, leaving nothing for them, would any crime have been committed?
Yes. Probably along the lines of failure to pay court-arranged child support. The marriage may also (at the option of the couple at the time of the marriage) have included a contract to share possessions in some fashion, at which point he may also be in violation of that contract, and could be ordered to comply and (like this lawyer) imprisoned if he refused to comply with the court's order.
Overall, if the government didn't have a single record of which 2 people were married, many of the crimes we prosecute now would get mired down in claims without more than testimonial evidence. It doesn't seem like it would simplify anything, to me
Why does whether or not two people are married even enter into any criminal procedings? It doesn't need to.
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.
Oh, I'm sure they were aware of it. But, you know, part of the reason we went through the whole American Revolution thing (did you hear about that? it was in all the papers), wrote and ratified a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, etc. was to establish greater personal freedoms and liberties than the English legal system permitted at the time.
You kept the English legal system as it was then almost entirely the same*, that includes contempt. I'm not intimately familiar with the US constitution but I don't see anything that makes this unconstitutional. Had your founders seen fit, they had the chance to abolish it, they didn't. I doubt they saw anything wrong with it. Indeed, even in this extreme case from everything I've read it seems to have been used appropriately, they guy seems to have gone through several judges who all believed he had the money but was refusing to comply with the court order, so he remained in contempt. He's had the keys to his cell from day one.
*Aspects of the current US legal system are closer to the old english one than parts of the current English one, e.g. we no longer have jury selection.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me