Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lawyer Jailed For Contempt Is Freed After 14 Years

Posted by samzenpus on from the all-we-need-is-a-little-patience dept.

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.

14 of 408 comments (clear)

  1. Why didn't this happen sooner? by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

    2. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Rich0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    5. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by TerranFury · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 5, Informative

      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
    7. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by C18H27NO3+ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by Anarchduke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    9. Re:Why didn't this happen sooner? by BasilBrush · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  2. Re:Why is this slashdot worthy? by Aladrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  3. Re:Why is this slashdot worthy? by e9th · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. What a waste of taxpayers money. by hattig · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Comment removed based on user account deletion