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.
do we get to find his treasure now?
This guy must have really hated his ex-wife.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
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.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
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?
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
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.
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.
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...
#DeleteChrome
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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?
>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