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
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.
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
>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.
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