11 years in jail so far..for contempt of court!

[ponderingturtle]

And if he is unable or unwilling to do either?


Cool in Denmark all you have to do is tell the court "No I don't want to give them the money" and that ends that. That would be a major restructuring of the tort system. All payments are voluntary, and the court can do nothing to force you to pay what you are owed.

[AmateurScientist]

Or maybe trial by combat (I think we used to have this as well, back in the days when we were civilised).

Or maybe they could just see which party weighs the same as a duck.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, trial by combat came first. I really like that idea. I think I would prefer jousting. Gives a whole new meaning to "My lawyer can beat up your lawyer."

Yeah, the duck thing is what immediately springs to mind. Burn 'er!

AS

[JayT]

I've been following the debate in this thread for a while. I didn't want to get involved without doing a little research first. I'm a fanatical researcher - it's a curse.

When it comes to the law, one can never do too much research. Law is sometimes more complicated than science, which is my primary specialty. But matters of law fascinate me too and I often follow controversial cases like this one.


It appears that AmateurScientist does have a well defined point. The court documents seem to vindicate his position.


From a document on file with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania:

Respondent transferred funds outside the country in an attempt to place the funds outside the reach of his ex-wife. Ten years and numerous appeals later, Respondent continues to maintain that he does not have control over the funds.

Notwithstanding judicial findings by the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirming the Delaware County Court’s order, Respondent chooses to stay in prison and asserts he has no control over the assets, although he has produced no evidence concerning these funds when given the opportunity to do so. Respondent's conduct is deceitful, dishonest, and is prejudicial to the administration of justice.


For a better account of the case (in PDF format), see these links:
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/disciplinaryboard/dboardopinions/3DB1997-Chadwick.pdf#search=%22%22Beatty%20Chadwick%22%22

and
http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/Opinions/s30035_03.pdf#search=%22%22Beatty%20Chadwick%22%22

I think anyone interested in this case should read these official court documents before coming to any conclusions. They give a much better account of the background of the case and are closer to the source than any media accounts. I have a great skepticism when it comes to the corporate media's account of things and they earned it.

AmateurScientist would certainly find them as interesting as I do.

The thing that smells fishy to me is that he is a meticulous, educated attorney. If he really was in the financial predicament he states, wouldn't any competent attorney have kept sufficient documentation that he could have easily provided to the court to validate his argument? The financial deal he claims to have been involved in and the way he handled it, appears to be grossly incompetent for an attorney with his education, skills and public record.

Why would an experienced professional attorney have no documentation to provide to the court to substantiate his financial argument? It's one thing not to be able to provide the required documentation and quite another to simply refuse to do so. The court obviously chose the latter argument to be the case here and apparently for good reason.

If any of what his ex-wife asserts about his personality is true, he seems like a very shrewd and dominating person. On what little evidence I have to work with so far, I still find it harder to trust his account of things than hers at this point.

Although the court's ruling seems rather draconian on the face of it to those not well versed in legal procedures, Mr. Chadwick's failure to comply with the court's order seems appropriate in this case.

As far as Mr. Chadwick's story is concerned, methinks something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

[ponderingturtle]

I suspect they would also apologize for making you come to court that day.

And buy you ice cream.

Seems to be danish justice from DD's description. If you can hide the money so that the court can not find it, you get to keep it. It rewards bad behavior but it also rewards competence which seems to be the goal.

[DanishDynamite]

So if you owe me money there and have hidden it in foreign countries you win in denmark then. YOu get to go spend some quality time in certain countries with your money.
You win if the police/prosecution can't prove otherwise within the FAIR and LEGAL framework which exists here.

[RandFan]

None of which negates the fact that it's an injustice to deprive a man of his liberty without a trial and impartial jury.Your statement is nonsensical and does not represent what happened. What my list of facts does negate is your statement.

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, and justice is to totaly ignore what ever the court says.
Obviously not. As I've said before.

[DanishDynamite]

How exactly is this type of case handled in Denmark?

Most of us see this as an unfortunate result of one mans stubbornness, not a violation of justice.

-R
It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

[RandFan]

Once again, I've lost my place. Anyone who feels they have been "slighted" by me not answering their post, please let yourselves be known.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...46#post1949346

2nd time I've made myself known.

[RandFan]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances. {shock} No trial? Say it ain't so? Your entire argument hangs on this, please, say it ain't so?

[The Mutha]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

What determines that person resolving the contempt of court?

[ponderingturtle]

No. I meant exactly what I said. When did you first realize that laws, and their application to a case, had no relevance to the concept of Justice? Surely there must have been a first time.

Yep facts and laws get in the way, what is happening is that the court decided to take a mans money from him and give it to his exwife, even if she didn't earn it. The man is nobeling fighting for the principle that what is his is his and the court has no say in that matter.

That is DD's justice.

[DanishDynamite]

If any reasonable person had bothered to read the posts in this thread, and follow it, relevance would have leapt out at them in the context of the posts.
In what sense?
For instance, you asked what relevance my short paragraph about perjury had to this discussion, and I told you that I was answering Vox Humana's second question, which specifically asked about the possibility of Chadwick's being prosecuted for perjury, yet you dismiss my response as irrelevant. Clearly, you aren't bothering to read this stuff, DD.
Clearly, no matter what you responded to it was irrelevant to the main question being asked. Sorry.
Responding to you is obviously pointless, as it was a few pages ago.
I'm beginning to feel the same way.
Somehow, I'll have to dig deep down inside and find a reason to continue living. Maybe I'll try faith. Faith in Stewie! Yeah.
Nothing personally wrong with you, AS. You are just a product of your place and time. Hence my good wishes for you.
The same to you.
Thanks.

[DanishDynamite]

{shock} No trial? Say it ain't so? Your entire argument hangs on this, please, say it ain't so?
Uh...no it doesn't.

[WildCat]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.
What? Thrown in jail w/o being charged w/ a crime? :rolleyes:

[DanishDynamite]

What determines that person resolving the contempt of court?
Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.

[ponderingturtle]

RandFan. Whether or not "finding someone in contempt of court" is a "fact of court" or not is hardly relevant when discussing whether "finding someone in contempt of court" should be infinitely extensionable.

So how should the court enforce its decisions? You can not take is future wages, as he might well just skip the country with the money. You can not find the money. What in this situation should a just court do?

Clearly the answer seems to be reward those who can successfully ignore its decisions, and only punish the ones who are less successful.

You keep talking about a misscarrage of justice but never actualy say what you would concider just in this situation.

[DanishDynamite]

Yep facts and laws get in the way, what is happening is that the court decided to take a mans money from him and give it to his exwife, even if she didn't earn it. The man is nobeling fighting for the principle that what is his is his and the court has no say in that matter.

That is DD's justice.
See a psichic, real soon now. :)

[RandFan]

Uh...no it doesn't.That is just gainsaying.

In any event, yeah, it does. You have declared that a person can't be incarcerated without a trial. That is your argument. In your example the person put in jail for 4 weeks is an innocent. How dare the Danish government incarcerate an innocent person?

[WildCat]

Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.
At which time said person doesn't ever have to comply w/ the court?

[RandFan]

What? Thrown in jail w/o being charged w/ a crime? :rolleyes: Danish wants to have his cake and eat it too. :)

[DanishDynamite]

What? Thrown in jail w/o being charged w/ a crime? :rolleyes:
Indefinetly. Apparently the norm in the great USA.

[JayT]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.


It's a simple fact that the concept of justice differs from one country to the next and even from county to county, province to province and even state to state within the same country.

The unfortunate reality is that no justice system is perfect but in most cases, any system of justice is better than anarchy.

[WildCat]

Indefinetly. Apparently the norm in the great USA.
I could see jail for violating Denmark's blasphemy laws... can't have people insulting the Great Sky Fairy.

[RandFan]

Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.For 2.5 million dollars, who would cough up the info? Damn, I would do that tomorrow. So the person has a great motivation to screw his wife, the courts and justice.

It sure doesn't sound much like justice to me.

[Wheezebucket]

DD, I think maybe you misunderstand what contempt of court is. It doesn't just mean that he slagged the judge off - in this case, he is held in contempt because he has gone out of his way to hinder the legal process. The judge asked him for the 2.5 million, Chadwick says "lost it", and the judge said "Ok, show me how you lost it and we'll call it a day". Chadwick says "nope". This stops the whole process. How can either party get their "justice" when one of them won't even participate in the process? You don't seem to care one bit about the wife's "justice", about looking at the actual case, about forming an opinion based on the facts - you just want to label it a witch hunt because you don't seem to understand the finer points of a working human civilization.

Or is it just that your opinion is there should be only one process for every single legal dispute, without exception - trial by jury? I know, it looks fun on Aly McBeal and Law & Order, but that's not generally how these things work.

[The Mutha]

Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.

Wow, so sit in jail for four weeks and get away with telling the judicial system of Denmark that I'm above the law. Interesting.

[RandFan]

Indefinetly. Apparently the norm in the great USA.Demonstrably not true. Can you name another case? Hey, if it is the norm there must be other examples, right?

[DanishDynamite]

At which time said person doesn't ever have to comply w/ the court?
Of course not. If the time runs out and the police is unable to come up with any further evidence.

This is how a real system of Justice functions.

Sorry for denegrading the sorry state of the US system.

[RandFan]

Of course not. If the time runs out and the police is unable to come up with any further evidence.

This is how a real system of Justice functions.

Sorry denegrading the sorry state of the US system."Further evidence"? Does the existing evidence degrade over 4 weeks?

[RandFan]

That is just gainsaying.

In any event, yeah, it does. You have declared that a person can't be incarcerated without a trial. That is your argument. In your example the person put in jail for 4 weeks is an innocent. How dare the Danish government incarcerate an innocent person?No answer?

[ponderingturtle]

Which is the problem is you would like to think that you live in a country where Justice rules.

AND?

How can you possibly feel that someone being pigheaded and/or innocent and refusing to say anything to the judge should rightfully be jailed for 11 YEARS!!!

I simply don't understand that mindset.

How can you possibly feel that someone like that deserves the money instead of his exwife? I simply don't understand why you want to reward someone who spits in the eye of justice like that.

[The Mutha]

Civil cases, as this one is, generally doesn't involve police. I've been to court seven times between the initial divorce and various non-payment of child support cases and in none of these was there any issues with law enforcement officers. None of them involved a trial by jury either. There were no "crimes" committed, just findings by the court.

How are divorces handled in Denmark? Does one go in front of a jury and say "I want a divorce and here are the reasons?"

[RandFan]

Strawman.

The defendant had an opportunity to demonstrate to the judge why he was not in contempt.
The defendant sought relief from an Appellate Court and was denied based on the evidence.
The defendant sought relief through the State Supreme Court and was denied based on the evidence.
The defendant has the means and the opportunity to at anytime comply with the court and set himself free
The defendant has pigheadedly defied the court.To make this into an assault on my values is an insult.No answer?

[ponderingturtle]

My ex is facing 180 days in jail beginning in February if he doesn't make any attempt to pay up on the $18k or so that he currently owes to our daughter (that's her in my avatar). He put a 4-bedroom house in his parents name and a Suburban as well, along with quitting a good paying job -- all so that he doesn't have to pay that bitch of an ex-wife of his... Imagine what lengths he would go to for over $2 million.


ANd I am sure that DD conciders his jail time to be a travesty of justice.

[ponderingturtle]

You win if the police/prosecution can't prove otherwise within the FAIR and LEGAL framework which exists here.

And they have done that(well this is a tort case and not a ciminal case so that changes all kinds of things). THey have shown that he has hidden the money, so you get to keep it if you hide the money well enough that they can't find it I see.

That is justice in the words of chief wiggam "I would rather let a thousand guilty men go than chase after them" That is justice.

[ponderingturtle]

Obviously not. As I've said before.

Obviiusly as you are refuseing to give the courts any tools to enforce their decsions. They are unjust.

[WildCat]

Of course not. If the time runs out and the police is unable to come up with any further evidence.
So someone can be jailed in Denmark w/o any evidence?

[The Mutha]

PonderingTurtle -- I know my ex does, but since we've been around that bend already, you would think he would have learned his lesson the first time.

Sixteen years ago, he was behind $1,500 and the Judge gave him 180 days in jail to "find" the money. Amazingly enough, he managed to find it the next day and got out. In DD's defense (and I don't know why I'm doing this), I think DD would be more inclined to be upset if the ex had not paid up in 180 days and the Judge told him that the contempt would continue indefinitely until he did pay up. But since it was already established that he could pay the money (Mommy and Daddy are LOADED), he would have just been really subborn at that point and trying to prove that he could thumb his nose at the law. As Mr. Chadwick is attempting.

[NobbyNobbs]

Depriving any man of his liberty without a impartial jury is injustice no matter how you slice it. Defending the right of a single judge to deprive any man of his liberty without an impartial jury is tantamount to defending the the nazi regime.

As it's been shown, this was not the decision of a single judge. A couple dozen judges at various levels agreed with the initial decision.

None of which negates the fact that it's an injustice to deprive a man of his liberty without a trial and impartial jury.

Maybe you haven't caught on to American law. Considering what passes for law on TV programs, I'm not surprised. Trial by a jury only regularly occurs in criminal trials. This was a civil trial. Or do you think a jury should be called everytime someone contests a speeding ticket?

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.

So if this case were tried in Denmark, the guy would only be in jail for 4 weeks? And if he managed to last that long, he's free to go, despite the fact (yes, fact) that he was the last person to have seen this money and refuses (not can't, but refuses) to explain what he did with it? One month of jail time, and you get away with 2.5 million that isn't yours? Sweet deal.

Also, could you please respond to the 2nd half of Post #475? Thanks.

[ponderingturtle]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

So he would get to keep the money for spending 4 weeks in jail? Weird, does not sound like any real way that the court can actualy make its ruleings binding.

As for special circumstances, well this case by its nature is special circumstances.

He never got a sentance, and still does not have one, he is being held until he complies.

"I will not pay" is clearly a perfectly valid way to get around courts in denmark if it works as you seem to think it does.

[Rocky]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

Let assume "very special circumstances".

What is the absolute limit?



-R

[ponderingturtle]

Either said person coughs up the info or the time limit runs out.

So even though they are still not compiling with what the court orders them to do, there is only a very small penalty for that? It seems really easy to ignore the courts in your country.

[ponderingturtle]

See a psichic, real soon now. :)

That seems to be what you are arguing for. He refuses to give up what the court determines he owes and there is nothing just that the court can do to change than.

[AmateurScientist]

DD, I think maybe you misunderstand what contempt of court is.

I think that's pretty obvious, despite it's having been explained to him several times by different posters.

BTW, is that Gene Kelly from Inherit the Wind in your avatar? It's kind of hard to tell given that it's stretched a little.

AS

[ponderingturtle]

Of course not. If the time runs out and the police is unable to come up with any further evidence.

This is how a real system of Justice functions.

Sorry for denegrading the sorry state of the US system.

This is tort law not criminal law, the police are not involved. What do the police do when someone sues someone or divorces someone in Denmark? They clearly need evidence for the prosecution after all.

[RandFan]

So someone can be jailed in Denmark w/o any evidence?:)


It's never ok to jail someone unless and until a person is found guilty in Denmark.
It's ok to jail someone for 4 weeks in Denmark without a jury trial.Something is rotten in Denmark.

[Wheezebucket]

I think that's pretty obvious, despite it's having been explained to him several times by different posters.

BTW, is that Gene Kelly from Inherit the Wind in your avatar? It's kind of hard to tell given that it's stretched a little.

AS

"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."

[ponderingturtle]

PonderingTurtle -- I know my ex does, but since we've been around that bend already, you would think he would have learned his lesson the first time.

Sixteen years ago, he was behind $1,500 and the Judge gave him 180 days in jail to "find" the money. Amazingly enough, he managed to find it the next day and got out. In DD's defense (and I don't know why I'm doing this), I think DD would be more inclined to be upset if the ex had not paid up in 180 days and the Judge told him that the contempt would continue indefinitely until he did pay up. But since it was already established that he could pay the money (Mommy and Daddy are LOADED), he would have just been really subborn at that point and trying to prove that he could thumb his nose at the law. As Mr. Chadwick is attempting.

And there are good reasons for that to be quite different in that case vs this one. The court is convinced Chadwick has the money, your ex might well not have assets in his name and such.

Still I don't get why his parents are letting him to that to their granddaughter, but it sounds like a very strange family to start with.

[AmateurScientist]

This link (http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021173.pdf#search=%22findlaw%20h.%20beatty%20chadw ick%22) is to a PDF file of one of the cases regarding this man. Below is a quote from near the end of the document. Wherever it says "this case," it is referring to Chadwick.

Thanks for the link again. I read it when Suddenly posted it, but after re-reading your excepts I can finally spell "contemnor" correctly. I'm embarrassed at my previous repeating of my mistake over and over.

AS

[shuize]

Let's see in the Danish example: $2,500,000 / 28 days = $89,285 / day.*

How many people would not thumb their noses at a court for almost $90,000 a day? Especially knowing, as Chadwick certainly does, that he can leave whenever he wishes.

Regardless, I doubt DD is being entirely honest about the Danish legal system. But even assuming he's telling the truth, he is still being quite arrogant to conclude the U.S. system is somehow unjust for following a well established practice of allowing courts to enforce their judgments through the use of civil contempt. In fact, the only people who seem to have a problem with it are Dustin, DD, and Chadwick.


* Even after 11 years, it still works out to over $600 / day not counting whatever he's made in interest up to this point.

[Ian Osborne]

Does anyone else wonder whether Dustin and DD are the same person? Surely there can't be two people in the world this stubborn? Except Chadwick, of course. Hey, maybe they're 'arguing' his case because they've found a kindred spirit! :D

[AmateurScientist]

"I may be rancid butter, but I'm on your side of the bread."

He he. Thanks. I thought so.

This little exchange might be appropriate here:



Judge: I hope counsel does not mean to imply that this court is bigoted.
Henry Drummond: Well, your honor has the right to hope.
Judge: I have the right to do more than that.
Henry Drummond: You have the power to do more than that.

[the Judge holds Drummond in contempt of court]



AS

[NoZed Avenger]

[Re: To Kill a Mockingbird]

Sorry, didn't read it.

Why should that stop you from giving a full review of the book and film?

Just going by this thread, I mean. Not reading stuff doesn't seem to stop you from forming conclusions anywhere else -- is it just in literary criticism you feel reading is important?

[RandFan]

He he. Thanks. I thought so.

Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/) (1960)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297188/) (1965) (TV)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095373/) (1988) (TV)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196632/) (1999) (TV)I've not seen #2 but my personal favorite is 1999's George C. Scott, Beau Bridges and Jack Lemmon. The movie (Spencer Tracy, Fredric March and Gene Kelly) was second for me though outstanding. 1988's Kirk Douglas, Jason Robards and Darrin McGavin was worth seeing but not as good as the others. JMO.

[slingblade]

Thanks for the link again. I read it when Suddenly posted it, but after re-reading your excepts I can finally spell "contemnor" correctly. I'm embarrassed at my previous repeating of my mistake over and over.

AS

oh, well, I guess it didn't hurt him to see it again. :blush:

[Wheezebucket]

Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053946/) (1960)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0297188/) (1965) (TV)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095373/) (1988) (TV)
Inherit the Wind (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0196632/) (1999) (TV)I've not seen #2 but my personal favorite is 1999's George C. Scott, Beau Bridges and Jack Lemmon. The movie (Spencer Tracy, Fredric March and Gene Kelly) was second for me though outstanding. 1988's Kirk Douglas, Jason Robards and Darrin McGavin was worth seeing but not as good as the others. JMO.

I don't really know how to explain it, but I just love everything about that movie (1960 original). The courtroom scenes in that one are almost too powerful for words. For example, the bit AS quoted above - everytime I watch that exchange I get goose bumps. And damn near everything that comes out of Gene Kelly's mouth is quotable. I will probably spend my entire life trying to be more like Spencer Tracy in that movie - and I will fail. He's that good.

To get back on track....ok, I have no idea how to get back on track. DD's argument has been torn to shreds and Dustin has all but vanished, only peaking in on occasion to underline or bold something then skitter off.

You know, I actually learned a bit about the legal system from this thread. Thanks dudes (is 'dudes' ok to use again? Curse you, Michelle Tanner!).

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, and Kevin, the lawyer/accomplice remark was nothing but a cheap shot. It serves only to make you appear small and bigoted, and to undermine your arguments. You are generally better than that.


I don't have much to add to my previous remarks, since nothing fundamentally new has been said in response to them and this thread has run a mile since then thanks to DD. In the end, you either think that sequestering $2.5m the way Chadwick is doing it is morally worse than stealing it, or you acknowledge that in this case the justice system is producing an unjust result by comparison to its treatment of theft.

I speak of justice in terms of outcomes appropriate to actions, not merely in terms of whether it is a "correct" outcome of applying the existing rules.

The lawyer remark was not a bigoted cheap shot though. I don't think public defenders like Suddenly would do anything like that for their clients, because there is no incentive and because the job has nothing about it to attract the kind of people who would do such things. However it's simply a fact that privately employed defence lawyers have the opportunity to do exactly what I said, and you would have to be vary naive indeed to think that nobody with criminal inclinations has ever noticed this.

I won't derail the thread further, however.

[AmateurScientist]

I speak of justice in terms of outcomes appropriate to actions, not merely in terms of whether it is a "correct" outcome of applying the existing rules.


In this case, I think you are burdened by your education in philosophy, particularly by your attraction to Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham.

That you fail to see that using force to coerce Chadwick, and the results that it has produced -- a spiteful jerk with nothing but his own twisted sense of showing his ex-wife how he is more clever and powerful than she is, and the cheating of the ex-wife of her rightful portion of the largest marital asset, the money -- is the only fair and just application of the court's authority is beyond me. Chadwick has brought this on himself, and no one can do anything about it to remedy it but him. Your suggestion that Chadwick be let out to see if he can get to the money seems a wee bit naive.


The lawyer remark was not a bigoted cheap shot though. I don't think public defenders like Suddenly would do anything like that for their clients, because there is no incentive and because the job has nothing about it to attract the kind of people who would do such things. However it's simply a fact that privately employed defence lawyers have the opportunity to do exactly what I said, and you would have to be vary naive indeed to think that nobody with criminal inclinations has ever noticed this.


Of course it was bigoted. You have amply demonstrated your hostility towards lawyers in past threads. You and I had one that was quite lengthy, if you will recall. Not only was your remark bigoted, but it was also rather ignorant, especially for someone as educated and bright as you to have made. Please allow me to explain.

You mentioned "privately employed defence lawyers." Kevin, please note that this case was a divorce case, not a criminal proceeding. Also note that Chadwick himself is a lawyer, although unquestionably now a disbarred one. A criminal defense lawyer is not the most likely kind of professional to whom one would turn when attempting to hide substantial cash assets abroad. One would likely enlist the services of bankers, accountants, investment representatives, financial planners, and/or lawyers specializing in corporate, commercial, international finance, and tax matters. A criminal defense lawyer would likely not be involved, because criminal defense lawyers don't routinely move large sums of money around. Only a rarified few would be familiar with big money, white collar, international criminal offenses.

Furthermore, Chadwick's hiding assets belonging to him and under his own control simply wasn't a crime. It was fraudulent, in that it was done with the intent to deceive the court and his then-wife and her lawyers, but it was not criminal.

Anyway, you know damn well you were being gratuitously insulting when you wrote "accomplice (strikeout -- but I don't know the tags for it) lawyer." Don't be disingenuous about it. That's dishonest.


I won't derail the thread further, however.

It's not the derail that I object to; it's the gratuitous cheap shot. You compound that gaffe by feigning innocence now and by insinuating that retained lawyers are corrupt by definition. You're not fooling anyone, Kevin.

AS

[Skeptic]

Of course not. If the time runs out and the police is unable to come up with any further evidence. .

First of all... evidence, schmevidence. It's not a FACT until there is a trial. So who cares what the police says?

Second,, the way you describe it, if I'm charged with murder and threathen the judge, I get a month in jail... and unless the police comes up with FURTHER evidence I go free?

So essentially, the maximum punishment for any crime whatever in Denmark is one month?

Something's very wrong here--I don't mean in Danish law, I mean in the way you describe it. Your description simply cannot be right.

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

Er... OK. Well, in case you didn't notice, this man wasn't sentenced for 11 years for contempt of court. He IS a case of "very special circumstances"--a man who, no matter how many opportunities to cooperate he was given, and he was (and still is) given plenty--he will just refuse to cooperate with the court.

So what is the difference--except for the words you use--between "In humane and progressive denmark, one can be jailed for contempt for more than four weeks only under very special circumstances" and "In the evil opressive USA, a perfectly innocent and wonderful man can be jailed for years for contempt of court under very special circumstances"?

It doesn't seem to me a man who deliberately behaves like he does would be really treated differently in Danish law as opposed to American law, precisely because he is such a "special circumstance". What are you really saying, apart from "The USA sucks!"?

[drkitten]

In the end, you either think that sequestering $2.5m the way Chadwick is doing it is morally worse than stealing it, or you acknowledge that in this case the justice system is producing an unjust result by comparison to its treatment of theft.

I think neither -- and I think the way you try to phrase this as such a dichotomy suggests that you don't understand the case.

If I stole $2.5 million dollars, and was caught, I could expect to be tried and convicted in criminal court. The sentence would probably be a prison term plus an order to make restitution (i.e. to give back the money).

If I served the term, but refused to make restitution, then the court would be justified in keeping me in jail until I made restitution. (If I couldn't pay the money back, it wouldn't be justified -- but under our little hypothetical here, and under the Chadwick case as well, that's not the case.) If I were sufficiently stubborn, the jailing-until-restitution-is-paid could (legally) last as long or longer than the prison sentence.

So, no, there's nothing particularly unjust with letting Chadwick off with only an indefinite jail term until he complies with the court order instead of an indefinite jail term plus a definite prison term.....

[shuize]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I seem to recall that even in criminal cases the amount of restitution due is often decided using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

For example, someone smashes my car with a baseball bat. The criminal act of smashing the car would need to be proven using the "beyond a resonable doubt" standard. But when I stand up in court with my estimates, the judge usually decides the amount of restitution due by a "preponderance of the evidence," right?*

* For this example, ignore state laws in which the amount of damage is an element of the crime (e.g. criminal damage over $500 is a felony).

[Kevin_Lowe]

I think neither -- and I think the way you try to phrase this as such a dichotomy suggests that you don't understand the case.

Actually you are missing my point because you misunderstood what I wrote.


If I stole $2.5 million dollars, and was caught, I could expect to be tried and convicted in criminal court. The sentence would probably be a prison term plus an order to make restitution (i.e. to give back the money).

If I served the term, but refused to make restitution, then the court would be justified in keeping me in jail until I made restitution. (If I couldn't pay the money back, it wouldn't be justified -- but under our little hypothetical here, and under the Chadwick case as well, that's not the case.) If I were sufficiently stubborn, the jailing-until-restitution-is-paid could (legally) last as long or longer than the prison sentence.

This is wrong. Under my hypothetical, it is not the case that there is a preponderance of evidence that I have the money stashed away. I do have the money, but the courts just do not have enough evidence to act upon.


So, no, there's nothing particularly unjust with letting Chadwick off with only an indefinite jail term until he complies with the court order instead of an indefinite jail term plus a definite prison term.....

I'll break this down still further.

Speaking purely morally, with no practical or legal considerations whatsoever, do you think either of these two actions is substantially worse than the other?

1. I steal 2.5 million dollars and burn it.
2. I steal 2.5 million dollars and hide it where it can never be found.

[slingblade]

I'll break this down still further.

Speaking purely morally, with no practical or legal considerations whatsoever, do you think either of these two actions is substantially worse than the other?

1. I steal 2.5 million dollars and burn it.
2. I steal 2.5 million dollars and hide it where it can never be found.

I dunno why crime keeps getting brought into the discussion, as the offense in the OP isn't about the man stealing the money. Anyway.

1 would be morally worse, becaue the owners of the money can never recover it. No one can ever recover it.

2 is not so bad, because even though you think you put the money where it will never be found, that outcome isn't guaranteed. Someone might find it. There may be a slim chance, but as long as the money exists, it's there to recover, potentially.

What does this have to do with essentially telling a judge to sod off for the last 11 years?

[Kevin_Lowe]

In this case, I think you are burdened by your education in philosophy, particularly by your attraction to Peter Singer and Jeremy Bentham.

That you fail to see that using force to coerce Chadwick, and the results that it has produced -- a spiteful jerk with nothing but his own twisted sense of showing his ex-wife how he is more clever and powerful than she is, and the cheating of the ex-wife of her rightful portion of the largest marital asset, the money -- is the only fair and just application of the court's authority is beyond me. Chadwick has brought this on himself, and no one can do anything about it to remedy it but him. Your suggestion that Chadwick be let out to see if he can get to the money seems a wee bit naive.


If you review the thread trying to find where I said that Chadwick be let out to see if he can get to the money, you will find that I actually never said any such thing.


Of course it was bigoted. You have amply demonstrated your hostility towards lawyers in past threads. You and I had one that was quite lengthy, if you will recall. Not only was your remark bigoted, but it was also rather ignorant, especially for someone as educated and bright as you to have made. Please allow me to explain.

I'm not hostile towards lawyers. I merely stated some facts about the nature of the criminal defence industry which you took offence at, and which you still seem to be nursing a grudge about.


You mentioned "privately employed defence lawyers." Kevin, please note that this case was a divorce case, not a criminal proceeding.


My hypothetical involved my hypothetical self being caught for theft and thus being subject to criminal proceedings. Thus the involvement of a hypothetical criminal defence lawyer.


Also note that Chadwick himself is a lawyer, although unquestionably now a disbarred one. A criminal defense lawyer is not the most likely kind of professional to whom one would turn when attempting to hide substantial cash assets abroad. One would likely enlist the services of bankers, accountants, investment representatives, financial planners, and/or lawyers specializing in corporate, commercial, international finance, and tax matters. A criminal defense lawyer would likely not be involved, because criminal defense lawyers don't routinely move large sums of money around. Only a rarified few would be familiar with big money, white collar, international criminal offenses.

The lawyer's unique use in these situations is that they can conspire with their client in absolute privacy, knowing that if the police spy on their conversations that the case against them will be thrown out of court.


Furthermore, Chadwick's hiding assets belonging to him and under his own control simply wasn't a crime. It was fraudulent, in that it was done with the intent to deceive the court and his then-wife and her lawyers, but it was not criminal.


This obvious, but also neither here nor there.


Anyway, you know damn well you were being gratuitously insulting when you wrote "accomplice (strikeout -- but I don't know the tags for it) lawyer." Don't be disingenuous about it. That's dishonest.


In my hypothetical fix I would very much want a dishonest criminal defence lawyer on my payroll to act as my accomplice. If you find it gratuitously insulting to imply that such beings exist, then I'm sorry you feel that way.


It's not the derail that I object to; it's the gratuitous cheap shot. You compound that gaffe by feigning innocence now and by insinuating that retained lawyers are corrupt by definition. You're not fooling anyone, Kevin.


Learn to take a joke. Feel free to make a remark about kangaroos, convicts, aboriginals or philosophers.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I dunno why crime keeps getting brought into the discussion, as the offense in the OP isn't about the man stealing the money. Anyway.

Thank you for replying.

Some people are bringing it in because they are just a bit confused, like Dustin at some points. I'm bringing it in to make the point that the outcome of the Chadwick case is unjust in some sense, by comparison to how we would treat someone who stole an equal amount of money.

Since wearying experience has shown me that repeating myself frequently is necessary in acrimonious JREF threads, I find it impossible to sympathise with Chadwick and I am unsure there is any better way of handling the situation than the one currently being pursued. I'm arguing that there is a problem which we should consider, and arguing against people who say there is no problem at all.


1 would be morally worse, becaue the owners of the money can never recover it. No one can ever recover it.

I actually asked if it would be substantially worse, and I chose my words carefully in that instance. From what you say next I think you think (as I do) that 1 is worse, but not substantially worse. As you say, the chance it will ever make a difference is slim.


2 is not so bad, because even though you think you put the money where it will never be found, that outcome isn't guaranteed. Someone might find it. There may be a slim chance, but as long as the money exists, it's there to recover, potentially.

What does this have to do with essentially telling a judge to sod off for the last 11 years?

What Chadwick did that got him in to trouble was case 2. He hid 2.5 million dollars, half or more of which I imagine his wife was morally entitled to, where nobody could find it.

By comparison if I had stolen 2.5 million dollars and burned it (case 1), or spent it, or hid it in such a way the courts could not assemble a preponderance of evidence that I still had it, I would probably have been punished more lightly than Chadwick has already been punished.

There's an inconsistency there in terms of justice, if worse action leads to lighter punishment. Ideally even people like Chadwick should still get a just outcome from the justice system, whether they like it or not.

[ponderingturtle]

Actually you are missing my point because you misunderstood what I wrote.



This is wrong. Under my hypothetical, it is not the case that there is a preponderance of evidence that I have the money stashed away. I do have the money, but the courts just do not have enough evidence to act upon.


Again that is entirely irrelvent to this case. Here this is a preponderance of evidence that he knows where the money is, and has control of it. In that situation there would be no difference how he got the money the court is ordering him to turn over.

If it was a crime of stealing the money then he would be out by now. But this isn't about theft it is about compliance with the court.

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you for replying.

Some people are bringing it in because they are just a bit confused, like Dustin at some points. I'm bringing it in to make the point that the outcome of the Chadwick case is unjust in some sense, by comparison to how we would treat someone who stole an equal amount of money.

But it is not the same. You are making a false equivocation here. If you stole the money from your company and blew it in Vegas you would get a prison sentence. If you stole the money and sent if over seas like Chadwick did, then you would be in the same situation if you refused to turn over the money.

Here he is being punished not for stealing the money but for having the money and not following the courts order to turn it over. So the punishment for theft is not relevant.


I actually asked if it would be substantially worse, and I chose my words carefully in that instance. From what you say next I think you think (as I do) that 1 is worse, but not substantially worse. As you say, the chance it will ever make a difference is slim.

The issue of punishment is not what you think. Yes if you stole 2.5 you would get sentenced to some punishment and it might be shorter than Chadwick, but Chadwick is still actively committing contempt of court and will be in jail until he stops.

So it is an ongoing "crime" not a single event.



What Chadwick did that got him in to trouble was case 2. He hid 2.5 million dollars, half or more of which I imagine his wife was morally entitled to, where nobody could find it.

By comparison if I had stolen 2.5 million dollars and burned it (case 1), or spent it, or hid it in such a way the courts could not assemble a preponderance of evidence that I still had it, I would probably have been punished more lightly than Chadwick has already been punished.

So? The point there is that the court would not be convinced of your contempt for it. Or you are not committing contempt because you don't have the money. If he didn't have the money and could demonstrate to the court that he didn't, then he would be free to go, because the money would not be recoverable. Here the money is recoverable and until it is recovered to shown to be unrecoverable he is going to stay in jail.

Theft is not relevant because he is not being punished in the same way that someone who was a criminal would be punished. He is being punished to gain compliance.

There's an inconsistency there in terms of justice, if worse action leads to lighter punishment. Ideally even people like Chadwick should still get a just outcome from the justice system, whether they like it or not.

The problem is that while stealing 2.5 million and blowing it in Vega's might result in a lower punishment than he has received and might be worse, it is fundamentally different because in that case you are not trying to undermine the power of the court to enforce its decisions. You are removing that aspect from the situation and then saying it is unfair. So it seems that you think compliance with the court should be strictly voluntary, and not obligatory

[JamesDillon]

This is wrong. Under my hypothetical, it is not the case that there is a preponderance of evidence that I have the money stashed away. I do have the money, but the courts just do not have enough evidence to act upon.
Then how is your hypothetical relevant to the case at hand, where a preponderance of the evidence does exist that Chadwick stashed away the money? Moreover, and most importantly, why are you apparently incapable of understanding that Chadwick is not being punished for stealing money? He is being confined for refusal to obey a lawful court order. It so happens that the order he refuses to obey involves the production of money that the court has found him to be concealing, but that is really beside the point. The court is justified in confining Chadwick simply for his failure to respect the authority of the court. It doesn't matter, really, whether the order in question involved the production of money, or other property, or documents, or anything else. The point is that the court has authority, both legal and moral, to compel a party appearing before it to obey its lawful orders. That is the key to this case, and your moral equivalency arguments overlook it entirely.

[AmateurScientist]

My hypothetical involved my hypothetical self being caught for theft and thus being subject to criminal proceedings. Thus the involvement of a hypothetical criminal defence lawyer.


Then your hypothetical is completely irrelevant and has no relationship to this case, and is illustrative of no point which could have any bearing on it.

A point you continue to ignore, or which you conveniently disregard, is that Chadwick did not commit a crime. He didn't steal his own money. The money was the largest marital asset. He merely hid it away from the court.

That act wasn't criminal.

Again, Chadwick isn't being punished. He's being coerced to comply with the court's order. Because of that fact, your hypothetical is rather inapt, and frankly, it is a poor illustration of an irrelevant point.

One final note. Your hypothetical criminal defense lawyer, if he knew you were committing a crime by concealing evidence of your theft, would indeed by an accomplice and would be a criminal himself. That you portray such a hypothetical lawyer as representative of "the criminal defense industry," as you say (it's a profession and a specialty within that profession, Kevin, not an industry) is bigoted and ignorant. Your hypothetical lawyer, if caught assisting his clients in committing such crimes, would not only be disbarred, but would also be indicted and tried for the same crimes as his client. That in your little imaginary dream world such characters are rampant says a lot about your tenuous grasp on reality.


The lawyer's unique use in these situations is that they can conspire with their client in absolute privacy, knowing that if the police spy on their conversations that the case against them will be thrown out of court.



See above. Lawyers do not routinely conspire with their clients. Any fool who would do so as a matter of course risks his own freedom, not to mention his professional license to practice law. You have not thought out your prejudiced view very well.

Also, you seem to have an unwarranted disdain for the attorney-client privilege. Apparently, you fail to grasp the purpose it serves and the theory behind it (Hint: it's not to assist criminals in committing crimes).


In my hypothetical fix I would very much want a dishonest criminal defence lawyer on my payroll to act as my accomplice. If you find it gratuitously insulting to imply that such beings exist, then I'm sorry you feel that way.


Well, there's no honor among thieves. If you had such a dishonest criminal defense lawyer on your payroll, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn after you were arrested and placed in jail that he simply "lost" the money and couldn't account to you for it. Ha ha. The joke would be on your hypothetical self. My, your hypothetical self is clever.


Learn to take a joke. Feel free to make a remark about kangaroos, convicts, aboriginals or philosophers.

Learn to make a joke. I can spot a gratuitous insult when I see it.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I seem to recall that even in criminal cases the amount of restitution due is often decided using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

For example, someone smashes my car with a baseball bat. The criminal act of smashing the car would need to be proven using the "beyond a resonable doubt" standard. But when I stand up in court with my estimates, the judge usually decides the amount of restitution due by a "preponderance of the evidence," right?*

* For this example, ignore state laws in which the amount of damage is an element of the crime (e.g. criminal damage over $500 is a felony).

That's right.

AS

[Didaktylos]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

You know, I suspect that it is going to pan out that the U.S. system is actually more favourable to a person in Chadwick's position.

It would not surprise me that that for practical purposes there is no limit to the number of times that new periods of 4 weeks can be imposed, as it is reasonable to suppose that continuing defiance of the court's authority would constitute "very special circumstances".

Furthermore, I suspect that someone in Chadiwick's position who decided on, for the sake of argument, Day 3 of the latest 4 week period that they were now ready to compy with the court's order would have to serve out the whole of the 4 week period before they were given the opportunity to make this change of circumstances known to the court. Whereas Chadwick, as soon as he had satisfied the court that this change of heart was genuine, would be released as quicky as the court's and the jail's administrative procedures would allow.

[slingblade]

Chadwick did not commit a crime. He didn't steal his own money. The money was the largest marital asset. He merely hid it away from the court.

That act wasn't criminal.

Again, Chadwick isn't being punished. He's being coerced to comply with the court's order.

Right. Which is why people bringing criminality into the discussion is weird.
The guy has the choice to get out of confinement at any time. Several courts have agreed his confinement is just, not just one.

And he commits his offense anew every day that he does not reveal where the money is. Just like Dorothy, he's always had the power to go home. All he has to do is click his heels three times and say: "The money's in the Caymans," or "There's no place like a Swiss bank," or wherever.

Yes, this is fair, it's right, and it's just. In fact, I'll feel let down by my justice system if they ever do give up and let him go without his obeying the court.

[JamesDillon]

One final note. Your hypothetical criminal defense lawyer, if he knew you were committing a crime by concealing evidence of your theft, would indeed by an accomplice and would be a criminal himself. That you portray such a hypothetical lawyer as representative of "the criminal defense industry," as you say (it's a profession and a specialty within that profession, Kevin, not an industry) is bigoted and ignorant. Your hypothetical lawyer, if caught assisting his clients in committing such crimes, would not only be disbarred, but would also be indicted and tried for the same crimes as his client. That in your little imaginary dream world such characters are rampant says a lot about your tenuous grasp on reality.

Thank you for making that point. I'm endlessly frustrated by the common stereotype (sadly perpetuated by the Law & Order series) of criminal defense attorneys as greasy sleazeballs who get rich getting murderers and rapists off the hook on "technicalities." An ex-girlfriend of mine is now a public defender in Boston, which I think is about the most selfless occupation one can pursue as an attorney, and it's made no easier by the popular misconception that criminal defense lawyers do nothing more than help bad people get away with crimes.

[JamesDillon]

It is handled by throwing the person who is in contempt in jail, sometimes up to 4 weeks. Even the 4 weeks can be extended under very special circumstances.

So in other words, all Chadwick would have to do under Danish law would be serve his 4 weeks, and then walk off with $ 2.5 million of his wife's money, in defiance of a court order? How is that more just?

(As an aside, do you have any support for that assertion? I frankly find it hard to believe that any legal system could be so lenient).

[NoZed Avenger]

So in other words, all Chadwick would have to do under Danish law would be serve his 4 weeks, and then walk off with $ 2.5 million of his wife's money, in defiance of a court order? How is that more just?

(As an aside, do you have any support for that assertion? I frankly find it hard to believe that any legal system could be so lenient).

I tried a few searches earlier today, but found nothing specific on that.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So in other words, all Chadwick would have to do under Danish law would be serve his 4 weeks, and then walk off with $ 2.5 million of his wife's money, in defiance of a court order? How is that more just?

(As an aside, do you have any support for that assertion? I frankly find it hard to believe that any legal system could be so lenient).

Or backwards.

[AmateurScientist]

Or backwards.

Or fictional.

[RandFan]

Thank you for making that point. I'm endlessly frustrated by the common stereotype (sadly perpetuated by the Law & Order series) of criminal defense attorneys as greasy sleazeballs who get rich getting murderers and rapists off the hook on "technicalities." An ex-girlfriend of mine is now a public defender in Boston, which I think is about the most selfless occupation one can pursue as an attorney, and it's made no easier by the popular misconception that criminal defense lawyers do nothing more than help bad people get away with crimes.It's a fair point but if we stop stereotyping attorneys who will we have left to demonize and ridicule. Blond jokes only go so far. I think you are treading on thin ice my friend.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm surprised by the number of people who have managed to completely miss my point in exactly the same way.

Nothing about the justice of a situation follows from whether the situation was the outcome of established legal procedure, or whether the situation was necessary to some greater good. So saying "Chadwick is in breach of the rules, and courts have to be able to enforce the rules" is stating a pair of non sequiturs if we are talking about whether the outcome is just.

Similarly, if I unfairly deprive someone of money that in itself is morally wrong, and such matters as whether the act is dealt with by the criminal system or the civil system make absolutely no difference to the moral status of the act. So saying "Chadwick's behaviour is the subject of civil action and not criminal action" is also stating a non sequitur if we are talking about whether the outcome is just.

If we were to change the laws regarding littering so that the punishment for littering was for a policeman to hit you with a stick until you picked the litter up and put it in a bin, and we called this the "police stick justice system" and defined it as being different to the civil and criminal justice systems, it would not magically make it moral for police to hit litterbugs with sticks for as long as it took to make them put the litter in a bin.

We choose, by the systems we create, which outcomes can arise. The system we currently have creates different outcomes for morally equivalent acts, at least in highly unusual cases where an irrational player like Chadwick is involved. By choosing the current system we choose to keep Chadwick in jail for eleven years and counting, just as by choosing the police stick system we might be choosing to beat a sufficiently recalcitrant litterer to death.

The test of a system is how it handles difficult cases, and Chadwick is highlighting a problem with the system. Maybe there is no other way to handle Chadwick, and I can't bring myself to sympathise with him.

[JamesDillon]

We choose, by the systems we create, which outcomes can arise. The system we currently have creates different outcomes for morally equivalent acts, at least in highly unusual cases where an irrational player like Chadwick is involved. By choosing the current system we choose to keep Chadwick in jail for eleven years and counting, just as by choosing the police stick system we might be choosing to beat a sufficiently recalcitrant litterer to death.

The test of a system is how it handles difficult cases, and Chadwick is highlighting a problem with the system. Maybe there is no other way to handle Chadwick, and I can't bring myself to sympathise with him.

But you aren't comparing morally equivalent acts. The act for which Chadwick is confined is not stealing $2.5 million dollars. Instead, it is refusing to obey a lawful court order. It makes no difference what the content of that order is; if the court had ordered him to produce a mere thousand dollars, or $20 billion, and he refused, the outcome would be exactly the same. It isn't a matter of the amount of money involved, it's a matter of willful disobedience to valid legal authority. Therefore your objects of comparison are not sufficiently similar to sustain the moral equivalency argument you want to make.

[ponderingturtle]

Or fictional.

Well DD admits that he does not know much about the law even in denmark. So does anyone here have any real way of finding out what it really is?

[AmateurScientist]

But you aren't comparing morally equivalent acts. The act for which Chadwick is confined is not stealing $2.5 million dollars. Instead, it is refusing to obey a lawful court order. It makes no difference what the content of that order is; if the court had ordered him to produce a mere thousand dollars, or $20 billion, and he refused, the outcome would be exactly the same. It isn't a matter of the amount of money involved, it's a matter of willful disobedience to valid legal authority. Therefore your objects of comparison are not sufficiently similar to sustain the moral equivalency argument you want to make.

I agree with you, of course, but apparently Kevin sees the legal authority our constitution (and thus originally the people) grants to judges as having no moral significance. To Kevin, the authority judges wield is just as arbitrary as his litter-hating policeman with a stick.

Kevin's world of morals is the ivory tower world of philosophers who too seldom descend the stairs of their towers to step outside and breathe in the outdoor air, smell the grass, and hear the birds singing and horns honking in traffic too. Those morals are ideal ones, not morals tainted and sullied by the harsh stench and reality of automobile exhaust and bird droppings.

Kevin's fictional world of morals is an ideal, and cannot be put into practice. His contains no lawful authority, because in his hypothetical world everyone either voluntarily obeys ideal moral precepts, or they turn themselves in when they transgress against them, or perhaps Big Brother sees the transgressions and metes out moral and just punishments on the spot.

AS

[Suddenly]

It's a fair point but if we stop stereotyping attorneys who will we have left to demonize and ridicule. Blond jokes only go so far. I think you are treading on thin ice my friend.

Exactly. Besides the public defender scum, there are plenty of lawyers who actually deserve ridicule:

Lawyer dies and (stay with me here) meets Saint Peter.

"How did I die?"

"Old age," replies St. Pete.

"I was only 33!!!" exclaims the lawyer.

"Hmmm... let me see here... ah yes, we used your billing records and according to those you are 120. Sorry."

Public defenders are useless otherwise unemployable hacks that are paid by the state so they allow the prosecutors to violate their clients rights. One time my friend was arrested and he didn't get read his rights but the hack said that didn't matter. What a tool. Everyone knows that if the cops don't read you your rights they have to let you go no matter the evidence.


Okay... just wanted to see how that looked in print. Rough day.


Back to the point. When dealing with law some people have a picture in their head about the way things work and that everything else, even if the facts line up, is wrong. The problem is that as long as they stick in the "shoulda" category they are immune to any solid proof contrary to their positions. No matter the information.

Which is worse:

1) Stealing money, admit gambling it away, and agreeing to repay it all at once or at least on a repayment plan.

2) Stealing money, and when ordered to return it, refuse to do so even though it can be proven that you have this money somewhere.

Is not the second continuing theft that with every day renews itself, thus deserving of continuing punishment?

This is the problem. This man is in effect commiting a theft every day he does not give the money back. When you steal something, part of the punishment is giving the stuff back or at least paying for it. The only difference here is that Chadwick has not (at least yet) been convicted of a theft offense.

The rest is irrelevant. That the money cannot be found is irrelevant unless we are now going to make finding a body mandatory to convict someone of murder, that the burden of proof or who does the judge think he is blah blah blah is all irrelevant. The above is all there is.

That Chadwick is a complete jerk that continues to commit the same theft is irrelevant. If a person will simply not respect the law, no matter how many times that person violates it, jail is that person's proper place.

[odorousrex]

I have read (most) of this thread with interest (it is quite long), and think this Chadwick guy is quite a jerk.

However, at this point, it seems like the just course would be not to let him go, but to charge him for (Criminal) contempt and have a jury look over the evidence of money hiding. If they find him to be a lying scumbag, sentence him to the maximum they can sentence him for criminal contempt but them let him go.

I'm deeply torn by this. I don't want this jerk to see a cent of the money but nor do I want to see someone rot in jail for 11 years just for being a stubborn ass.

Anyway you look at it, $2 million is not worth 11 years of life. (Especially now that he is almost 70)

He can NEVER get time back. Had he been working during that time, he's probably have $2mil and more by now.

[Suddenly]

I have read (most) of this thread with interest (it is quite long), and think this Chadwick guy is quite a jerk.

However, at this point, it seems like the just course would be not to let him go, but to charge him for (Criminal) contempt and have a jury look over the evidence of money hiding. If they find him to be a lying scumbag, sentence him to the maximum they can sentence him for criminal contempt but them let him go.

I'm deeply torn by this. I don't want this jerk to see a cent of the money but nor do I want to see someone rot in jail for 11 years just for being a stubborn ass.

Anyway you look at it, $2 million is not worth 11 years of life. (Especially now that he is almost 70)

He can NEVER get time back. Had he been working during that time, he's probably have $2mil and more by now.

He thinks it is worth it, and in the final analysis don't you feel slightly more comforatble that someone capable of such stubborn and sustained willingness to spite is locked up?

Why be torn? He's the one that wants to stay in jail for a decade of his life just to prove a point. Death Rows tend to be full of people that think like this, that will stop at nothing to prove a point or salvage some sort of "victory."

The streets are safer without him.

[marksman]

The problem with criminal contempt is that once you pull that trigger, you have given up on colelcting the money. Criminal contempt conviction means he committed a crime in the past. If he then coughs up the money, the criminal contempt conviction cannot be diminished, meaning he has no incentive to produce the funds. He simply has to spend his sentence in prison and is then free to spend his ill-gotten gains however he likes.

In this case, criminal contempt helps nobody. His ex-wife doesn't see her money. He isn't given his liberty.

Criminal contempt is a punishment for when someone disobeyed the court and there's nothing that can be done to fix the violation. (For example, let's say the court ordered Chadwick not to destroy a million dollar painting he owns, until the court has a chance to determine if it should go to him or his ex-wife. Chadwick goes home and burns the painting. The painting is gone and Chadiwck cannot be compelled to restore it. But the Court can't just shrug its shoulders. Chadwick would then appropriately be punished for criminal contempt.)

Here, in contrast, there is something Chadwick can do to unmake his contempt: reveal the money.

[Ladewig]

Here, in contrast, there is something Chadwick can do to unmake his contempt: reveal the money.

Or to be more precise: reveal the money or produce any evidence whatsoever that it was lost in some sort of business deal.

[Didaktylos]

Given that this Chadwick guy has an ego the size of the galaxy (apologies to Douglas Adams), it seems a pity that he can't be subjected to continuing public humilation instead or on top the confinement.

[Kevin_Lowe]

But you aren't comparing morally equivalent acts. The act for which Chadwick is confined is not stealing $2.5 million dollars.


I disagree. The core of the issue is that Chadwick is retaining $2.5m he is not entitled to. The rest is a matter of how, as a society, we try to rectify this situation.


Instead, it is refusing to obey a lawful court order. It makes no difference what the content of that order is; if the court had ordered him to produce a mere thousand dollars, or $20 billion, and he refused, the outcome would be exactly the same. It isn't a matter of the amount of money involved, it's a matter of willful disobedience to valid legal authority. Therefore your objects of comparison are not sufficiently similar to sustain the moral equivalency argument you want to make.

One way we can try to rectify this situation is to have a court order him to hand the money over, and lock him up indefinitely if he does not comply. As we can see in this one very odd case, this ends up with him being in jail for longer than people who have done worse things.

I agree with you, of course, but apparently Kevin sees the legal authority our constitution (and thus originally the people) grants to judges as having no moral significance. To Kevin, the authority judges wield is just as arbitrary as his litter-hating policeman with a stick.

In a sense, sure, they are both just social systems made up to solve problems. The only basis for choosing one over the other would be that it produces better or worse results in practise.


Kevin's world of morals is the ivory tower world of philosophers who too seldom descend the stairs of their towers to step outside and breathe in the outdoor air, smell the grass, and hear the birds singing and horns honking in traffic too. Those morals are ideal ones, not morals tainted and sullied by the harsh stench and reality of automobile exhaust and bird droppings.


That paragraph sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually mean anything.


Kevin's fictional world of morals is an ideal, and cannot be put into practice. His contains no lawful authority, because in his hypothetical world everyone either voluntarily obeys ideal moral precepts, or they turn themselves in when they transgress against them, or perhaps Big Brother sees the transgressions and metes out moral and just punishments on the spot.


Where did I say anything that remotely resembled any of that? Actually, please don't attempt to justify it. Just stop this threadjack.

[JamesDillon]

I disagree. The core of the issue is that Chadwick is retaining $2.5m he is not entitled to. The rest is a matter of how, as a society, we try to rectify this situation.
I guess there's nothing more to be said, then, as we seem to have reached a point of fundamental disagreement. I don't know how else to put it, except that you're just wrong, as a factual matter, about the justification for Chadwick's detention. His offense, once again, is not stealing $2.5 million. His offense is his refusal to obey a court order. But we've been over that. If you refuse to concede that point, there's nothing to be gained from continually rehashing previous arguments. I'll say once again that your equivalency argument fails because you're trying to argue that two very different offenses are morally equivalent, and they're not. I guess that's as far as we can go.

[AmateurScientist]

I disagree. The core of the issue is that Chadwick is retaining $2.5m he is not entitled to. The rest is a matter of how, as a society, we try to rectify this situation.


The core of the matter is Chadwick's choosing to be an outlaw. He imagines himself above the law -- not the law regarding theft, as you keep trying to make this case about, but about respect for the authority of the law, regardless of from where it derives. In this case, it happens to derive from the court's legal jurisdiction over the divorce, its equitable authority to divide the parties' assets, and the court's inherent authority to enforce its own orders as the law allows and demands.

Chadwick's "crime" is in trying to place himself outside the authority of the law. He has failed, because the judge wisely brought Chadwick back within the folds of the law with a bench warrant and the judge's confining him is reminding him that he's not above it.

Chadwick is not a Nietzsche Superman.


One way we can try to rectify this situation is to have a court order him to hand the money over, and lock him up indefinitely if he does not comply. As we can see in this one very odd case, this ends up with him being in jail for longer than people who have done worse things.


Yes, and it's the best way. You haven't suggested anything better, nor has anyone else.


In a sense, sure, they are both just social systems made up to solve problems. The only basis for choosing one over the other would be that it produces better or worse results in practise.


God, I hate the utlitarian notion of elevating results over everything else. It doesn't matter to you how we get there.


That paragraph sounds impressive, but it doesn't actually mean anything.


It means you have your head in the clouds, just like Singer and Bentham.


Where did I say anything that remotely resembled any of that? Actually, please don't attempt to justify it. Just stop this threadjack.

Oooh, what's the matter, Kevin? Can't take a joke? Actually, the gist of your criticisms in this thread suggest that we can't have judges enforcing order because judges' authority isn't grounded in moral principles. Their authority is arbitrarily granted by the people, and ... well, I don't know how else you arrive at your utilitarian nonsense.

Your accusing me of jacking this thread is laughable. More than anyone else, I've keep it focused on the issue here, and explained why. Your bringing some bogus moral equivalency test into has diverted it unnecessarily and brought in a bunch of irrelevant utilitarian philosopher nonsense.

You want me to make a gratuitous philosopher joke? Fine. Just how many times a day do you have to ask if someone wants fries with that?

AS

[ponderingturtle]

I disagree. The core of the issue is that Chadwick is retaining $2.5m he is not entitled to. The rest is a matter of how, as a society, we try to rectify this situation.

But if you are convicted of stealing 2.5 million you do not get to keep the money. If he had stolen it and was refusing to show into what off shore account it went to he could be in the same situation.

So if I steal your car, I get X ammount of prison but I get to keep your car? I was punished for it after all.

He didn't steal anything it was his money at the time, so there is no theft, what he is doing is not turning the money over to the person who is lawfuly entiteled to it. So how long do you have to stay in jail to remove your obligation to follow the court order?

If someone had the option of either turning over say 100 million or spending a couple of years in jail and then the obligation to turn the money over goes away, how is that just? It turns any civil judgement into "do what the court says of spend X ammount of time in jail" that changes civil court decisions alot.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I guess there's nothing more to be said, then, as we seem to have reached a point of fundamental disagreement. I don't know how else to put it, except that you're just wrong, as a factual matter, about the justification for Chadwick's detention. His offense, once again, is not stealing $2.5 million. His offense is his refusal to obey a court order. But we've been over that. If you refuse to concede that point, there's nothing to be gained from continually rehashing previous arguments. I'll say once again that your equivalency argument fails because you're trying to argue that two very different offenses are morally equivalent, and they're not. I guess that's as far as we can go.

As you say, it's a fundamental disagreement. You think that justice is the outcome of judicial procedure, rather than the yardstick by which we judge that outcome.

You might as well say that the hypothetical litterer who gets beaten to death with a stick, from my earlier example, is not beaten to death for littering but rather they are beaten to death for refusing to obey a police stick order. It's a distinction without a difference. What counts is the outcome that results from the system as a whole.

[Edited to fix embarassing goof]

[Kevin_Lowe]

The core of the matter is Chadwick's choosing to be an outlaw. He imagines himself above the law -- not the law regarding theft, as you keep trying to make this case about, but about respect for the authority of the law, regardless of from where it derives. In this case, it happens to derive from the court's legal jurisdiction over the divorce, its equitable authority to divide the parties' assets, and the court's inherent authority to enforce its own orders as the law allows and demands.

That's a very fancy way of saying "those are the rules, and he broke the rules!". Yes, he broke the rules. If we want to we can change the rules. If the rules produce undesireable outcomes then there is a need to at least look at them carefully and see whether they can be improved. Maybe they can be, maybe they cannot be.


Chadwick's "crime" is in trying to place himself outside the authority of the law. He has failed, because the judge wisely brought Chadwick back within the folds of the law with a bench warrant and the judge's confining him is reminding him that he's not above it.

Chadwick is not a Nietzsche Superman.


I don't think anyone is unaware of the facts of the case. We're talking about whether or not this is the best way of handling unusual cases like Chadwick.


Yes, and it's the best way. You haven't suggested anything better, nor has anyone else.


This is quite true, however productive discussion of that very topic was going on earlier before DD arrived on the scene. Frankly that was a lot more interesting than this.


God, I hate the utlitarian notion of elevating results over everything else. It doesn't matter to you how we get there.


On the contrary, I am very interested in using the way of getting there that produces the best results.


It means you have your head in the clouds, just like Singer and Bentham.


If you think you have the chops to maintain that as a developed argument I'd be very interested to see it, in a completely different thread.


Oooh, what's the matter, Kevin? Can't take a joke? Actually, the gist of your criticisms in this thread suggest that we can't have judges enforcing order because judges' authority isn't grounded in moral principles. Their authority is arbitrarily granted by the people, and ... well, I don't know how else you arrive at your utilitarian nonsense.


I agree. You don't know. You can't even accurately regurgitate what I said, let alone make an intelligent guess at how I arrived at what I said.


Your accusing me of jacking this thread is laughable. More than anyone else, I've keep it focused on the issue here, and explained why. Your bringing some bogus moral equivalency test into has diverted it unnecessarily and brought in a bunch of irrelevant utilitarian philosopher nonsense.


Heaven forbid that anyone bring utilitarian philosophy into a discussion of morality, involving the relative desireability of different outcomes.

[ponderingturtle]

As you say, it's a fundamental disagreement. You think that justice is the outcome of judicial procedure, rather than the yardstick by which we judge that outcome.

You might as well say that the hypothetical shoplifter who gets beaten to death with a stick, from my earlier example, is not beaten to death for littering but rather they are beaten to death for refusing to obey a police stick order. It's a distinction without a difference. What counts is the outcome that results from the system as a whole.

And remember if the shop lifter is punished he gets to keep the stuff, because that is justice.

[Kevin_Lowe]

And remember if the shop lifter is punished he gets to keep the stuff, because that is justice.

Damn. The goof is recorded for posterity.

To be serious, though, if it's a choice between the litterer being beaten to death and the litterer getting away with it, then it's not an ideal choice but I would have to go with letting the litterer get away with it.

In the same way, the longer Chadwick stays in jail the more grounds there are to wonder as to whether this is the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including his wife and society at large.

[ponderingturtle]

Damn. The goof is recorded for posterity.

To be serious, though, if it's a choice between the litterer being beaten to death and the litterer getting away with it, then it's not an ideal choice but I would have to go with letting the litterer get away with it.

In the same way, the longer Chadwick stays in jail the more grounds there are to wonder as to whether this is the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including his wife and society at large.

So how long do you have to stay in prison to get to keep something that you are not entitled to?

[WildCat]

To be serious, though, if it's a choice between the litterer being beaten to death and the litterer getting away with it, then it's not an ideal choice but I would have to go with letting the litterer get away with it.
And the "moral equivalency" of being beaten to death for a minor crime to being held for contempt of court, and upheld by numerous other courts, is...?

In the same way, the longer Chadwick stays in jail the more grounds there are to wonder as to whether this is the best possible outcome for everyone involved, including his wife and society at large.
Actually, the longer he stays in jail rather than provide the documentation to get out shows what a dangerous nutcase he really is. He strikes me as the type to commit a murder/suicide if given half the chance. He'd rather sit in jail for 11 years than give his ex a dime of his money, what makes you think he'd suddenly forget the whole grudge, get a job and start paying alimony once he is released?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's a very fancy way of saying "those are the rules, and he broke the rules!". Yes, he broke the rules. If we want to we can change the rules. If the rules produce undesireable outcomes then there is a need to at least look at them carefully and see whether they can be improved. Maybe they can be, maybe they cannot be.

100% agree.

But in this case, we don't want to change them, because they have created the desired outcome.

[RandFan]

100% agree.

But in this case, we don't want to change them, because they have created the desired outcome.Yes, I agree. So long as the defendant has the means to get himself out of jail and there is a system in place for the defendant to appeal his case then I'm very happy with the rules as they are.

Anyone who chooses to stay in jail to spite a plaintiff and to obstruct justice should be in jail IMO.

[AmateurScientist]

That's a very fancy way of saying "those are the rules, and he broke the rules!". Yes, he broke the rules. If we want to we can change the rules. If the rules produce undesireable outcomes then there is a need to at least look at them carefully and see whether they can be improved. Maybe they can be, maybe they cannot be.


No, actually, it's not. It's a choice between having rules, and not having rules at all. This is about respect for the principle of having rules, Kevin, not what those particular rules we choose to have are.

I repeat. Chadwick has chosen to be an outlaw by disregarding the rule of law itself, not any particular law. He has made that abundantly clear by his steadfast refusal to comply, and his steadfast refusal after trying to appeal or get relief in every way imaginable. He's been denied the relief he seeks 44 times. This isn't about a bad rule. Stop couching it in those terms, as you are deflecting the real issue.


I don't think anyone is unaware of the facts of the case. We're talking about whether or not this is the best way of handling unusual cases like Chadwick.


Then why do you keep misrepresenting, or at least disregarding, the fact that Chadwick can get out any time he wants? This isn't some grand miscarriage of justice because of a foolish rule that needs re-examination.


This is quite true, however productive discussion of that very topic was going on earlier before DD arrived on the scene. Frankly that was a lot more interesting than this.


You've just revealed how little attention you've been paying. DD created the damn thread in the first place. He didn't derail it. He simply doesn't understand what contempt of court is or why it is vital to the orderly functioning of courts.

What was more interesting than what? You're not being very clear. Are you trying to say this case is about moral equivalency and results, and that's the only interesting angle? If so, then I suggest that the hundreds of posts in this thread not dealing with the philosophical and moral implications (as philosophers use the term) of the case might indicate that other posters do find it interesting in a different way from you.


On the contrary, I am very interested in using the way of getting there that produces the best results.


Then why are you suggesting that the judge's exercising his inherent powers to enforce his orders might not be the best way of getting there? You seem to want to divorce the end result from the process.


If you think you have the chops to maintain that as a developed argument I'd be very interested to see it, in a completely different thread.


No, actually, I'm not so arrogant as to believe that I know more about philosophy than you, so I don't think I have the chops to keep up with your understanding of Singer's or Bentham's beliefs. I wish you would extend the lawyers in this legal discussion the same courtesy.


I agree. You don't know. You can't even accurately regurgitate what I said, let alone make an intelligent guess at how I arrived at what I said.


I think you still don't understand why there's no moral equivalency argument to be made in this case.


Heaven forbid that anyone bring utilitarian philosophy into a discussion of morality, involving the relative desireability of different outcomes.

It doesn't belong in this discussion.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

"Further evidence"? Does the existing evidence degrade over 4 weeks?
Of course not.

[DanishDynamite]

How can you possibly feel that someone like that deserves the money instead of his exwife? I simply don't understand why you want to reward someone who spits in the eye of justice like that.
I don't.

The guy in question may be the Devil incarnate. Makes no difference to my point of view and shouldn't make any difference to yours.

[DanishDynamite]

And they have done that(well this is a tort case and not a ciminal case so that changes all kinds of things). THey have shown that he has hidden the money, so you get to keep it if you hide the money well enough that they can't find it I see.
It makes no difference what they think they can show.
That is justice in the words of chief wiggam "I would rather let a thousand guilty men go than chase after them" That is justice.
Nope. That's not Justice.

[DanishDynamite]

So someone can be jailed in Denmark w/o any evidence?
Nope. They can be held in temporary custody if there is evidence enough.

[DanishDynamite]

So if this case were tried in Denmark, the guy would only be in jail for 4 weeks? And if he managed to last that long, he's free to go, despite the fact (yes, fact) that he was the last person to have seen this money and refuses (not can't, but refuses) to explain what he did with it? One month of jail time, and you get away with 2.5 million that isn't yours? Sweet deal.
AFAIK, yes, if the police can't make a case and prosecute the fellow or the police don't come up with additional evidence which will cause the court to extend the suspect's stay in jail, he will be released.
Also, could you please respond to the 2nd half of Post #475? Thanks.
Please enlighten me.

[DanishDynamite]

So he would get to keep the money for spending 4 weeks in jail? Weird, does not sound like any real way that the court can actualy make its ruleings binding.
The court didn't have a say in the US case, remember?
As for special circumstances, well this case by its nature is special circumstances.
In what sense?
He never got a sentance, and still does not have one, he is being held until he complies.
Exactly.
"I will not pay" is clearly a perfectly valid way to get around courts in denmark if it works as you seem to think it does.
Obviously not. The difference between the US and Denmark seems to be that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" actually means something in Denmark.

[WildCat]

AFAIK, yes, if the police can't make a case and prosecute the fellow or the police don't come up with additional evidence which will cause the court to extend the suspect's stay in jail, he will be released.
How many times do you have to be told this is not a criminal case, it is a civil case? The police are not involved in any way, shape, or form. The judge found him in contempt of court. He is in charge of enforcing the court's decisions - not the prosecutors or police, neither of whom are involved in this case.

Nope. They can be held in temporary custody if there is evidence enough.
Jail = temporary custody. Prison = long-term custody.

[DanishDynamite]

Let assume "very special circumstances".

What is the absolute limit?



-R
Good question. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll have to check up with my brother-in-law who is.

[DanishDynamite]

So even though they are still not compiling with what the court orders them to do, there is only a very small penalty for that? It seems really easy to ignore the courts in your country.
Yes, we try and uphold the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps one day your country will as well.

[WildCat]

Good question. I'm not a lawyer, so I'll have to check up with my brother-in-law who is.
Be sure to make clear you're talking about contempt of court in a civil case, and not a criminal case. You appear to be confused about the difference.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Obviously not. The difference between the US and Denmark seems to be that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" actually means something in Denmark.
The offense that he is in jail for is the open defiance of a legitimate court order. There is no doubt that he is guilty of this. What's the problem?

[DanishDynamite]

That seems to be what you are arguing for. He refuses to give up what the court determines he owes and there is nothing just that the court can do to change than.
No sentence has been made. If you live in a country where a man can be held in jail for 11 years with no sentence ever having been made, and you still feel this is Justice, clearly our views of a just society differ.

[marksman]

So, if a litigant in a Danish Court refuses to produce subpoenaed documents that would show where he has hid his wife's jewelry, the Danish Court must then convene a jury to determine if he has acted in contempt of the court's subpoena power?

That's simply wrong, DD. Danish courts can jail people for contempt just like American and other European courts can. The only only difference is the Danish judge has to certify once a month the reasons for the continued incarceration, while the American judges are more flexible with their schedules.

Please cite to me the Danish statute that requires a Danish judge to convene a criminal jury trial in order to punish a contemnor for more than four weeks. I've dealt with many law firms in Europe who have been helping me enforce American judgments in Europe and as far as I can tell, while courts do vary in form, the substance does not. And the essence of judicial proceedings -- as it has stood since the Roman courts upon which European civil law is based -- is that judges have inherent power to punish those they find have violated their orders, limitedonly by the power of courts of superior jurisdiction to overrule them in the interest of justice.

I would really like to see the Danish law that changes more than 2,000 years of Western jurisprudence. Perhaps it exists. I really doubt it. I rather imagine that you are not as well-versed in your nation's own laws as you might think.

[DanishDynamite]

I think that's pretty obvious, despite it's having been explained to him several times by different posters.
It makes no difference at all what "contempt of court" might happen to mean in the US. I was talking about the system of Justice.

[DanishDynamite]

This is tort law not criminal law, the police are not involved. What do the police do when someone sues someone or divorces someone in Denmark? They clearly need evidence for the prosecution after all.
Sues someone? I suspect they laugh if they do anything at all! :)
And the police are generally not involved when somedivorces someone else.

[DanishDynamite]

Let's see in the Danish example: $2,500,000 / 28 days = $89,285 / day.*

How many people would not thumb their noses at a court for almost $90,000 a day? Especially knowing, as Chadwick certainly does, that he can leave whenever he wishes.
You don't seem to understand. The 4 weeks are just there in order to let the police do their job and find evidence unemcumbered.
Regardless, I doubt DD is being entirely honest about the Danish legal system. But even assuming he's telling the truth, he is still being quite arrogant to conclude the U.S. system is somehow unjust for following a well established practice of allowing courts to enforce their judgments through the use of civil contempt. In fact, the only people who seem to have a problem with it are Dustin, DD, and Chadwick.
Which I think highlights the differences between a civilized society and the US.

[DanishDynamite]

Does anyone else wonder whether Dustin and DD are the same person? Surely there can't be two people in the world this stubborn? Except Chadwick, of course. Hey, maybe they're 'arguing' his case because they've found a kindred spirit! :D
I promise, I'm not Dustin. :)

[DanishDynamite]

First of all... evidence, schmevidence. It's not a FACT until there is a trial. So who cares what the police says?

Second,, the way you describe it, if I'm charged with murder and threathen the judge, I get a month in jail... and unless the police comes up with FURTHER evidence I go free?
Obviously not.
So essentially, the maximum punishment for any crime whatever in Denmark is one month?
No. The maximum sentence is without limit.
Something's very wrong here--I don't mean in Danish law, I mean in the way you describe it. Your description simply cannot be right.
I believe it is.
Er... OK. Well, in case you didn't notice, this man wasn't sentenced for 11 years for contempt of court. He IS a case of "very special circumstances"--a man who, no matter how many opportunities to cooperate he was given, and he was (and still is) given plenty--he will just refuse to cooperate with the court.
Uh..yes, it was contempt of court which kept him in jail for 11 years, never having gone to trial.
So what is the difference--except for the words you use--between "In humane and progressive denmark, one can be jailed for contempt for more than four weeks only under very special circumstances" and "In the evil opressive USA, a perfectly innocent and wonderful man can be jailed for years for contempt of court under very special circumstances"?
I think I've explained this for quite a bit.
It doesn't seem to me a man who deliberately behaves like he does would be really treated differently in Danish law as opposed to American law, precisely because he is such a "special circumstance". What are you really saying, apart from "The USA sucks!"?
The US doesn't suck. A system of Justice which keeps a man in jail for 11 years without judgement from a court, does suck.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't.

The guy in question may be the Devil incarnate. Makes no difference to my point of view and shouldn't make any difference to yours.

You are the one saying that the state should stop and let him take the money after an ammount of time. When does he rightfuly get the money?

He clearly values the money more than his freedom, or he would have turned it over, so why do are you argueing that he should be free to take the money and move outside of the courts power.

[NoZed Avenger]

Which I think highlights the differences between a civilized society and the US.


So can you point us to the actual law or something similar showing what inherent or statutory powers a court has in Denmark to enforce its own rulings and/or the contempt of court language you are asserting a 4 week limit under?

It seems a civilized request, given the subject matter of the thread, and it has been asked previously by at least one poster.

[ponderingturtle]

Nope. They can be held in temporary custody if there is evidence enough.

That is what is happening here. He is in temporary custody until he accounts for the money.

[DanishDynamite]

How many times do you have to be told this is not a criminal case, it is a civil case? The police are not involved in any way, shape, or form. The judge found him in contempt of court. He is in charge of enforcing the court's decisions - not the prosecutors or police, neither of whom are involved in this case.
In what sense does it matter which public enforcement agency can do this? The bottom line is that a man has been kept in jail for 11 years without any trial ever being held.
Jail = temporary custody. Prison = long-term custody.
Those definitions sort of blur in this case, don't they?

[DanishDynamite]

Be sure to make clear you're talking about contempt of court in a civil case, and not a criminal case. You appear to be confused about the difference.
You appear to feel it makes any difference to the person derived of his freedom.

[slingblade]

You don't seem to understand. The 4 weeks are just there in order to let the police do their job and find evidence unemcumbered.

Ther are no police in this case. Your 4 week limit doesn't apply to this case, as there are no police who need time to gather more evidence. It was a divorce case, held in a civil court. This is a civil matter, and the charge made during the civil matter was made by the court: a charge of contempt of that court. The man is being held in contempt of court and will be so held until the complies with the order of the court.

There are no police. It is a civil matter. There is no charge of a crime, unless one includes "contempt of court in a civil matter" as a crime. But if so, the judge charged him with contempt for not answering a judge's legal and proper question. The same court and judge found him guilty of contempt, and the same judge sentenced him to one day in jail for every day he does not comply with the court's order. He has refused compliance for every day of eleven years.

This charge and sentence has since been upheld by numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, twice.

Which I think highlights the differences between a civilized society and the US.

How? You have been talking about apples while we have been talking about washing machines. I don't think talking about apples informs a discussion on washing machines any more than your argument informs our discussion of this case.

But you can always persist. ;)

[DanishDynamite]

The offense that he is in jail for is the open defiance of a legitimate court order. There is no doubt that he is guilty of this. What's the problem?
Of course there is doubt. No case has ever been held to determine his guilt.

[slingblade]

Of course there is doubt. No case has ever been held to determine his guilt.

The judge who holds him in contempt determined his guilt.

[ponderingturtle]

The court didn't have a say in the US case, remember?

Well you seem to think it is justice for him to be able to walk away with the 2.5 million of the money the the court determines is his wifes with 4 weeks in jail.


In what sense?
It is not common, this is very unusual and thus fits into the unusual circumstance that you stated


Obviously not. The difference between the US and Denmark seems to be that the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" actually means something in Denmark.

It is not a criminal case. You are intirely missing the issue, the goal of the court is not to punish him, it is to get him to comply with the court order(something that danish courts don't seem to care about).

[DanishDynamite]

So, if a litigant in a Danish Court refuses to produce subpoenaed documents that would show where he has hid his wife's jewelry, the Danish Court must then convene a jury to determine if he has acted in contempt of the court's subpoena power?

That's simply wrong, DD. Danish courts can jail people for contempt just like American and other European courts can. The only only difference is the Danish judge has to certify once a month the reasons for the continued incarceration, while the American judges are more flexible with their schedules.

Please cite to me the Danish statute that requires a Danish judge to convene a criminal jury trial in order to punish a contemnor for more than four weeks. I've dealt with many law firms in Europe who have been helping me enforce American judgments in Europe and as far as I can tell, while courts do vary in form, the substance does not. And the essence of judicial proceedings -- as it has stood since the Roman courts upon which European civil law is based -- is that judges have inherent power to punish those they find have violated their orders, limitedonly by the power of courts of superior jurisdiction to overrule them in the interest of justice.

I would really like to see the Danish law that changes more than 2,000 years of Western jurisprudence. Perhaps it exists. I really doubt it. I rather imagine that you are not as well-versed in your nation's own laws as you might think.
As I believe I've said before, I'm not a lawyer. Just an observer of cases.

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, we try and uphold the idea of "innocent until proven guilty". Perhaps one day your country will as well.

So how does that standard apply to tort cases?

[DanishDynamite]

You are the one saying that the state should stop and let him take the money after an ammount of time. When does he rightfuly get the money?
No, I'm the one saying someone shouldn't be kept in jail for 11 years without ever having a trial. I'm the one in favor of a country governed by justice.
He clearly values the money more than his freedom, or he would have turned it over, so why do are you argueing that he should be free to take the money and move outside of the courts power.
You have no idea of the money or any other particulars of the case, so why keep pretending you do?

You have no idea as no case has been held.

[ponderingturtle]

No sentence has been made. If you live in a country where a man can be held in jail for 11 years with no sentence ever having been made, and you still feel this is Justice, clearly our views of a just society differ.

Because he is being held until he complies with the court order. All he has to do to get out is account for the money. And if he didn't have it he could show that and he would be free to go.

2.5 million does not disapear that easily with out enough of a paper trail to show where it went. He would rather be in jail than give the money to his ex wife, so the only problem I have with this situation is that his exwife does not have the money that is hers.

[DanishDynamite]

So can you point us to the actual law or something similar showing what inherent or statutory powers a court has in Denmark to enforce its own rulings and/or the contempt of court language you are asserting a 4 week limit under?

It seems a civilized request, given the subject matter of the thread, and it has been asked previously by at least one poster.
Nope.

[ponderingturtle]

It makes no difference at all what "contempt of court" might happen to mean in the US. I was talking about the system of Justice.

You are right it is wrong for the court to be trying to take his money.

[ponderingturtle]

Sues someone? I suspect they laugh if they do anything at all! :)
And the police are generally not involved when somedivorces someone else.

So that is exactly the same here. So where is the jury and beyond a reasonable dought come in?

You brought up the police but they are not involved in these cases in your country either. Sounds very unjust to me

[ponderingturtle]

You don't seem to understand. The 4 weeks are just there in order to let the police do their job and find evidence unemcumbered.

Which I think highlights the differences between a civilized society and the US.

Yep in civilized society if you don't comply with a court order nothing will happen to you.

[DanishDynamite]

Ther are no police in this case. Your 4 week limit doesn't apply to this case, as there are no police who need time to gather more evidence. It was a divorce case, held in a civil court. This is a civil matter, and the charge made during the civil matter was made by the court: a charge of contempt of that court. The man is being held in contempt of court and will be so held until the complies with the order of the court.

There are no police. It is a civil matter. There is no charge of a crime, unless one includes "contempt of court in a civil matter" as a crime. But if so, the judge charged him with contempt for not answering a judge's legal and proper question. The same court and judge found him guilty of contempt, and the same judge sentenced him to one day in jail for every day he does not comply with the court's order. He has refused compliance for every day of eleven years.

This charge and sentence has since been upheld by numerous courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, twice.
Slingy, in what possible sense does it matter what type of court this case has been relegated to in the US? Is the sense of Justice ´dependent?
How? You have been talking about apples while we have been talking about washing machines. I don't think talking about apples informs a discussion on washing machines any more than your argument informs our discussion of this case.

But you can always persist. ;)
And I will persist.

I realize the cause may be hopeless...

[ponderingturtle]

The US doesn't suck. A system of Justice which keeps a man in jail for 11 years without judgement from a court, does suck.

THere have been many judgements from many courts, so that is entirely untrue. Unless you agree with his arguements that it is wrong to hold him in jail because he will not turn over the money, not can't but just won't.

[DanishDynamite]

The judge who holds him in contempt determined his guilt.
As I said, no case has ever been held.

[ponderingturtle]

In what sense does it matter which public enforcement agency can do this? The bottom line is that a man has been kept in jail for 11 years without any trial ever being held.

Those definitions sort of blur in this case, don't they?

Yes, because he is a hateful spiteful person. He would rather be in jail than account for the money

[DanishDynamite]

Sorry, ponderingturtle, but I need to get to bed. Still, I think I did a good job of following up! :)

[ponderingturtle]

No, I'm the one saying someone shouldn't be kept in jail for 11 years without ever having a trial. I'm the one in favor of a country governed by justice.

Define trial. He has had a great many days in court infront of many many different judges.

[Vox Humana]

I disagree. The core of the issue is that Chadwick is retaining $2.5m he is not entitled to. The rest is a matter of how, as a society, we try to rectify this situation.


Kevin, what would be a just rectification of the situation?

[shuize]

Let's see, in the Danish example: $2,500,000 / 28 days = $89,285 / day.

You don't seem to understand. The 4 weeks are just there in order to let the police do their job and find evidence unemcumbered.
What's not to understand? If what you claim is true, the Danish version of Chadwick has to be released at the end of the four weeks. $2.5 million / 28 days = almost $90,000 / day. Easy money. As others have noted above, that sort of enforcement power is worthless, and I seriously doubt it's how any modern legal system really operates.

Are you claiming that the four weeks only applies in criminal cases? That judges have no power to enforce orders in non-criminal cases? If so, I call bullsh't.

Oh wait. You did manage to weasel some wiggle room by mentioning "special circumstances" that may allow Danish judges to hold someone longer. But when asked how such procedures work in practice or the upper limits of such detention, you dodge by claiming "Oh, sorry, I'm not really a lawyer" and don't follow up with any legal cites to check for ourselves.

The way I'm reading this is yet another foreigner tossing insults at the U.S. legal system for not being "civilized like Denmark" and just turning people loose to collect their hidden money but then not really explaining how things might work in extreme cases -- as Chadwick's certainly is -- in Denmark.

Rather dishonest debating, I say.

[RandFan]

Of course not. Then what is the point of new evidence?

[RandFan]

No, I'm the one saying someone shouldn't be kept in jail for 11 years without ever having a trial. I'm the one in favor of a country governed by justice.Strawman. Rhetorical. There is no argument here.

[RandFan]

Sorry, ponderingturtle, but I need to get to bed. Still, I think I did a good job of following up! :) I'm not sure what you mean? I think the proof is in the pudding. That you didn't provide any compelling argument seems to me to render a different verdict.

[RandFan]

I realize the cause may be hopeless... Well hopeless yes but simply because the cause is vacuous.

The man has the means to free himself.
He is biting his nose to spite his face.
This is ongoing as every day the courts give him another opportunity to comply.
He has been given rights and access to appelate and state supreme courts.
He has availed himself of his rights and has presented evidence as to why he should be freed.
All of the judges have weighed the evidence and have made a finding against him (as is their responsibility).Bottom line, justice has been and is being served. We can only persist in demonstrating these facts to you. That you keep arguing that a man has been in jail 11 years without benifit of trial is not a persuasive argument given all of these facts.

[AmateurScientist]

Uh..yes, it was contempt of court which kept him in jail for 11 years, never having gone to trial.


You may have explained this quite a bit as you claim, DD, but you've gotten it wrong every single time.

The fact is that Chadwick did have an opportunity for a trial on his wife's petition to hold him in contempt (that's how an indirect or constructive contempt charge comes before the court -- by petition and notice, and an opporturnity to be heard, with a lawyer present to represent him). In fact, he had three opportunities for a hearing in court on the petition for contempt. Do you know what happened? He failed to appear on each of those three occasions. His lawyer appeared in court, but Chadwick did not.

Stop saying he didn't have a trial. He had notice and three separate opportunities to show up and defend himself against the allegations in the contempt petition. He didn't defend himself. The wife's lawyers presented their evidence and it went uncontroverted. The judge accepted it, and determined Chadwick to be in contempt of his previous orders to turn the money over to a neutral third party during the pendency of the divorce.

The judge had to issue a bench warrant for Chadwick's arrest, which wasn't executed for months because he couldn't be found, because Chadwick failed to appear for his own contempt hearings -- all three of them.

AS

[Marquis de Carabas]

It's unjust that he didn't get his day in court just because he didn't show up. In Denmark, you just kind of stroll in whenever you have a few spare minutes.

[WildCat]

It's unjust that he didn't get his day in court just because he didn't show up. In Denmark, you just kind of stroll in whenever you have a few spare minutes.
In Libertopia Denmark there is no such thing as contempt of court, because everyone is so civilized the thought to ignore a judge's order never even arises. In fact, there's only one judge in the entire country and he hasn't had a case in years the place is so civilized.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, what would be a just rectification of the situation?

The ideal resolution, as I see it, would be punishing Chadwick firmly for contempt of court - a month or two in jail and a heavy fine seems appropriate as a first stab at it - and getting the court's hands on his money so it can be divided up.

We were exploring the systems available for trying to track down his money earlier, but it got lost when DD made the thread explode. Possibly they could be improved so that that we aren't totally reliant on Chadwick cooperating. Then again, possibly not.

If it turns out we cannot find the money without his cooperation then it would make sense to me to jail Chadwick for a length of time equivalent to what he would have gotten for stealing the money, then let him out on parole (taking precautions to make it difficult for him to leave the country) and garnish any earnings he makes. We would give his wife the rest of the marital assets, and have auditors crawl all over him annually until the money is found or paid off.

That sounds better to me that paying to keep him in jail indefinitely. Yes, Chadwick "wins" in one sense and there is a risk he will get out of the country and access the money from some state where he cannot be extradited. I see that risk as acceptable for a better overall outcome.

[Ian Osborne]

I'd be surprised if these avenues haven't already been explored - if the court was able to get its hands on the money, it surely would have, right?

And you must remember that it's only in hindsight that we know he's been in for 11 years. At the time, the judge would've assumed he'd stay inside for long enough for him to realise the court was serious, then surrender the assets. Such unusual stubbornness is impossible to plan for.

[NoZed Avenger]

Nope.

So. . . . your allegation of Denmark being more civilized relies completely on your memory and understanding of a law that you are not sure exists in the first place and cannot actually point to as evidence, and you admit your understanding may be off because you aren't an attorney?

Are you for real? You're berating us over the superiority of a system that you cannot even show exists, except in your head?

What has happened -- has some 13 year old hacked your account or something?

[Vox Humana]

The ideal resolution, as I see it, would be punishing Chadwick firmly for contempt of court - a month or two in jail and a heavy fine seems appropriate as a first stab at it - and getting the court's hands on his money so it can be divided up.
I don't disagree with this; nobody does. I think it has been made clear in this thread that the court has no way to get its hands on the money outside of coercing Chadwick to turn it over - he's the only one who knows where it is, so this is a non-starter. If by some stroke of luck the court (or more likely the wife) finds where the money is stashed then what you propose will come to pass.


If it turns out we cannot find the money without his cooperation then it would make sense to me to jail Chadwick for a length of time equivalent to what he would have gotten for stealing the money, then let him out on parole (taking precautions to make it difficult for him to leave the country) and garnish any earnings he makes. We would give his wife the rest of the marital assets, and have auditors crawl all over him annually until the money is found or paid off.
Kevin, others on this thread have made the point that if someone steals $2.5M and the courts are certain that they still control the money, then they will be subject to the same treatment as Chadwick - namely they will be in jail until they turn it over. I assume that this treatment will occur prior to the criminal case commencing, but IANAL - someone check me on this, please. Please recognize this idea; you seem to be avoiding it.


That sounds better to me that paying to keep him in jail indefinitely. Yes, Chadwick "wins" in one sense and there is a risk he will get out of the country and access the money from some state where he cannot be extradited. I see that risk as acceptable for a better overall outcome.
I think you are underestimating the ease with which a man with $2.5M at his disposal can get out of the country.

Kevin, please respond to this fact: even if we accept for the moment that Chadwick's situation is akin to stealing $2.5M, the treatment for his turning over the money is the same - judical coercion until he turns over the funds.

[WildCat]

If it turns out we cannot find the money without his cooperation then it would make sense to me to jail Chadwick for a length of time equivalent to what he would have gotten for stealing the money, then let him out on parole (taking precautions to make it difficult for him to leave the country) and garnish any earnings he makes. We would give his wife the rest of the marital assets, and have auditors crawl all over him annually until the money is found or paid off.

That sounds better to me that paying to keep him in jail indefinitely. Yes, Chadwick "wins" in one sense and there is a risk he will get out of the country and access the money from some state where he cannot be extradited. I see that risk as acceptable for a better overall outcome.
You still haven't answered my question: Why do you think that a man who would rather spend 11+ years in jail rather than give his wife a dime of his money would suddenly put aside his grudge, get a job, and start paying alimony if released from jail? After all, he holds the keys now. As for "the rest of the marital assets" there aren't any.

And as I said before, this guy is a prime candidated for a murder-suicide. How is this in the best interests of anyone, especially his wife?

[JamesDillon]

Nope.

Then understand that you are very probably wrong in your description of the Danish legal system, because it defies belief that any judicial system should lack the authority to enforce its own orders. You might want to check up on that before you start calling other systems uncivilized, lest you look a bit foolish when you discover that Denmark's is basically the same.

[ponderingturtle]

The ideal resolution, as I see it, would be punishing Chadwick firmly for contempt of court - a month or two in jail and a heavy fine seems appropriate as a first stab at it - and getting the court's hands on his money so it can be divided up.

And he has done a great job at hiding the money so that the only way to find it is for him to say where it is. So the options are holding him until he accounts for the money, or letting him go and he can flee the country and do what he wants to with the money.

You have to pick between those two options.

We were exploring the systems available for trying to track down his money earlier, but it got lost when DD made the thread explode. Possibly they could be improved so that that we aren't totally reliant on Chadwick cooperating. Then again, possibly not.

Well if his wifes lawyers and such could find the money they would have, and the court would have taken it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I don't disagree with this; nobody does. I think it has been made clear in this thread that the court has no way to get its hands on the money outside of coercing Chadwick to turn it over - he's the only one who knows where it is, so this is a non-starter. If by some stroke of luck the court (or more likely the wife) finds where the money is stashed then what you propose will come to pass.


I'm not talking about the actual powers of the actual court. If the actual powers of the actual court have not been exhausted then the lawyers involved are doing something very odd. We were trying to establish earlier if there were any useful investigatory avenues or powers that the court in question lacked, but I didn't think we had reached a clear-cut conclusion.


Kevin, others on this thread have made the point that if someone steals $2.5M and the courts are certain that they still control the money, then they will be subject to the same treatment as Chadwick - namely they will be in jail until they turn it over. I assume that this treatment will occur prior to the criminal case commencing, but IANAL - someone check me on this, please. Please recognize this idea; you seem to be avoiding it.


It can look like that when I've dealt with and moved on. The fact that Chadwick was unable to cover his tracks well enough to make it impossible to amass a preponderance of evidence that he had the money does not make his crime more heinous. If it makes the idea easier to grasp, consider that the same system could keep an equally stubborn person in jail forever for failing to hand over $50.

At some point, if the judicial solution is worse than the original problem then we have to take a second look at the judicial solution.


I think you are underestimating the ease with which a man with $2.5M at his disposal can get out of the country.

It's not a topic I pretend to be an expert on. If you have personal experience with it, please share.


Kevin, please respond to this fact: even if we accept for the moment that Chadwick's situation is akin to stealing $2.5M, the treatment for his turning over the money is the same - judical coercion until he turns over the funds.

My response should be obvious. At some point, keeping people in prison until they comply becomes a disproportionate punishment for not doing whatever it was they were supposed to do. I don't think it would be at all a good idea to keep, say, shoplifters in jail until they handed back what they stole, because an irrational shoplifter could spend the rest of their life in jail at vast public expense.

One (semi-joking) definition of irrationality is doing the same thing again and hoping for different results.

[Ian Osborne]

Then understand that you are very probably wrong in your description of the Danish legal system, because it defies belief that any judicial system should lack the authority to enforce its own orders. You might want to check up on that before you start calling other systems uncivilized, lest you look a bit foolish when you discover that Denmark's is basically the same.

I agree that the Danish system is probably more similar to the US one than DD realises, but on a point of order, this wouldn't - and shouldn't - stop him criticising America's.

[slingblade]

I agree that the Danish system is probably more similar to the US one than DD realises, but on a point of order, this wouldn't - and shouldn't - stop him criticising America's.


Well, no, of course not. It's just better to criticise an actual wrong, or to at least fully (largely?) comprehend whatever it is you're criticising. But the act itself is healthy and necessary.

Thanks for that reminder. It's easy to forget.

[ponderingturtle]

I agree that the Danish system is probably more similar to the US one than DD realises, but on a point of order, this wouldn't - and shouldn't - stop him criticising America's.

Why? He is holding up his system as being vastly superior to the other system in ways that he can not really explain. Why should we take anything he is saying seriously?

[slingblade]

Because if no one criticises a system, the people living in that system tend to overlook its flaws, to one degree or another. It often takes an outsider's voice to get one's attention.

The practice of vigilant criticism is healthy, even if it begins with someone grossly misunderstanding our system and forcing us to examine it more carefully in order to explain it to him or or her.

I appreciate the opportunity to look this closely at this case and settle in my own mind if it's just or not. And I conclude, based on what I know, it's eminently just. But if no one had questioned it, I wouldn't have, either.

So, thanks. :)

[marksman]

DanishDynamite is berating the American legal system for something that I have every reason to believe the Danish legal system also does: indefinitely depriving a man of his liberty for violating a civil court's order without a jury trial.

DD has acknowledged he knows nothing of his own legal system, and part of his condemnation of the American case was his erroneous belief that a better alternative exists and he cited his erroneous notions of Danish law as evidence.

In fact, I doubt there is a nation in the world in which the Court lacks the power to jail people for willful and continuing violation of the court's orders, even without the need to convene a jury, until the violation is cured.

[ponderingturtle]

Because if no one criticises a system, the people living in that system tend to overlook its flaws, to one degree or another. It often takes an outsider's voice to get one's attention.

The practice of vigilant criticism is healthy, even if it begins with someone grossly misunderstanding our system and forcing us to examine it more carefully in order to explain it to him or or her.

I appreciate the opportunity to look this closely at this case and settle in my own mind if it's just or not. And I conclude, based on what I know, it's eminently just. But if no one had questioned it, I wouldn't have, either.

So, thanks. :)

So, all the conspiracy theorist and holocaust deniers are doing a public service then? All the AIDS deniers and chiropracters are keeping the health care system honest?

[slingblade]

So, all the conspiracy theorist and holocaust deniers are doing a public service then? All the AIDS deniers and chiropracters are keeping the health care system honest?

Well, yes, in a sense, I suppose they are. That's not to say that it's the only thing they're doing. That doesn't assume approval of their methods.

It's just good to question. Isn't that what skepicism is? Questioning what we think we know?

Are you here to have your ideas challenged or confirmed? And if the latter, what do you hope to learn from that?

[ponderingturtle]

Well, yes, in a sense, I suppose they are. That's not to say that it's the only thing they're doing. That doesn't assume approval of their methods.

It's just good to question. Isn't that what skepicism is? Questioning what we think we know?

Are you here to have your ideas challenged or confirmed? And if the latter, what do you hope to learn from that?


There comes a point when the question isn't constructive anymore, and the questioning stops having any postive effect. In this case that was many many pages ago in the thread. The rejection of answers when questions are adressed is a fundamental part of both DD's method of questioning the legal system as well as conspiracy theorists and all the Woos method of thinking.

ANd he isn't questioning he is makeing statements with out evidence, so he is just asking questions in the exact same way loose change is just asking questions. Neither of them are promoting healthy debate and you are being far to gracious to grant them that.

[slingblade]

Well, it did me some good. YMMV, and it apparently does.

[Ian Osborne]

Why? He is holding up his system as being vastly superior to the other system in ways that he can not really explain. Why should we take anything he is saying seriously?

Agreed he has no right to hold the Danish legal system as being vastly superior to that of the US, but it's the invalid comparison that's wrong, not the fact that he's criticising American law. Even if Denmark was a military dictatorship which didn't even pretend to hold trials before jailing someone, he would still have the right to address what he sees as an injustice in America - unless he was Denmark's military dictator, of course! :D

As a more realistic example, I'm from the UK. back in the Eighties, when Margaret Thatcher stood alone in Europe and vetoed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, I was ashamed. I hope - and believe - no one here would deny my right to criticise the then South African government because of what my own Prime Minister was doing. Ed knows I didn't vote for the [Rule 8]...

So, all the conspiracy theorist and holocaust deniers are doing a public service then? All the AIDS deniers and chiropracters are keeping the health care system honest?

Like Danish Dynamite's take on the Chadwick case, their views don't pass scrutiny. However, we're talking about the rights to express those views, not their intrinsic validity.

An awful lot of myths and legends have passed their way into official Russian history, for example (in so far as history can ever be 'official'). Would this prevent anyone from Russia criticising a historical perspective? If the criticism in question was to deny the Holocaust, that person is almost certainly a liar with an agenda. But it's the quality of his case that brings it down, not the fact that he's from a nation which itself has more than its share of bad history.

In a nutshell, the Danish legal system may well be similar to the USAs regarding contempt. This does not make either morally right, and nor does it stop someone from Denmark criticising an American case.

And as a footnote, don't take this as an endorsement of DD's take on the Chadwick case. I agreed with him at first, but revised my opinion when lawyers such as AS and Suddenly expained its finer points. I just don't think his criticisms are in any way compromised by having similar laws in his own country.

[ponderingturtle]

Agreed he has no right to hold the Danish legal system as being vastly superior to that of the US, but it's the invalid comparison that's wrong, not the fact that he's criticising American law. Even if Denmark was a military dictatorship which didn't even pretend to hold trials before jailing someone, he would still have the right to address what he sees as an injustice in America - unless he was Denmark's military dictator, of course! :D

As a more realistic example, I'm from the UK. back in the Eighties, when Margaret Thatcher stood alone in Europe and vetoed sanctions against apartheid South Africa, I was ashamed. I hope - and believe - no one here would deny my right to criticise the then South African government because of what my own Prime Minister was doing. Ed knows I didn't vote for the [Rule 8]...

Then again, I bet you had some serious suggestions that might be made to work and not just say "That is Bad, and all who support it are Evil". You had definite ways it should be changed. All DD seems to be saying is that chadwick served his time and the money is now rightfully his.



Like Danish Dynamite's take on the Chadwick case, their views don't pass scrutiny. However, we're talking about the rights to express those views, not their intrinsic validity.

And when the views are repeatedly expressed in ways contrary to any rational debate and trying to solve the problem

An awful lot of myths and legends have passed their way into official Russian history, for example (in so far as history can ever be 'official'). Would this prevent anyone from Russia criticising a historical perspective? If the criticism in question was to deny the Holocaust, that person is almost certainly a liar with an agenda. But it's the quality of his case that brings it down, not the fact that he's from a nation which itself has more than its share of bad history.

In a nutshell, the Danish legal system may well be similar to the USAs regarding contempt. This does not make either morally right, and nor does it stop someone from Denmark criticising an American case.

The way that he is compleatly divorced from reality and refuses to define things and provide an acceptable alternative is what prevents him from criticising. He needs to be able to provide some alternative solutions

And as a footnote, don't take this as an endorsement of DD's take on the Chadwick case. I agreed with him at first, but revised my opinion when lawyers such as AS and Suddenly expained its finer points. I just don't think his criticisms are in any way compromised by having similar laws in his own country.

And that is an acceptable way to critizise something, you said "that doesn't look right", and looked into it more, and where unable to find out a superior solution. Everyone admits that this is an imperfect solution, they just feel that chadwick getting run away with the money is a worse situation. Idealy he would have turned over the money and never spent a day in prison.

Ideal situations are great, but you need to deal with less than idea realities or you are not doing anything helpful.

I mean Idealy everyone should be able to see that ID is not science and has no place in a science class room. That isn't happening so there need to be alternate ways of dealing with this as we are not in an ideal world.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No sentence has been made. If you live in a country where a man can be held in jail for 11 years with no sentence ever having been made, and you still feel this is Justice, clearly our views of a just society differ.

Yes, your views are wrong. I wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

[WildCat]

My response should be obvious. At some point, keeping people in prison until they comply becomes a disproportionate punishment for not doing whatever it was they were supposed to do.
And there is the critical flaw in your argument. It's not a punishment, it is coercion to force compliance. Comply, and out of jail you go.

[JamesDillon]

I agree that the Danish system is probably more similar to the US one than DD realises, but on a point of order, this wouldn't - and shouldn't - stop him criticising America's.

It should certainly stop him from suggesting that America's system is less "civilized" than Denmark's if the two are basically the same in this regard, which I suspect they are. It's fine to suggest that this is a bad outcome under any legal system (though I disagree for reasons previously stated), but it's quite hypocritical to argue that Denmark's system is superior to that of the U.S. when 1) he has no idea whether his description of Danish law is accurate, and 2) in the more informed speculation of myself and every other lawyer in this thread, it most likely isn't.

[shuize]

It should certainly stop him from suggesting that America's system is less "civilized" than Denmark's if the two are basically the same in this regard, which I suspect they are. It's fine to suggest that this is a bad outcome under any legal system (though I disagree for reasons previously stated), but it's quite hypocritical to argue that Denmark's system is superior to that of the U.S. when 1) he has no idea whether his description of Danish law is accurate, and 2) in the more informed speculation of myself and every other lawyer in this thread, it most likely isn't.
Exactly. To paraphrase a certain cigar-weilding ex-president: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

[AmateurScientist]

Exactly. To paraphrase a certain cigar-weilding ex-president: "It's the hypocrisy, stupid."

He he. Credit where credit is due -- that was James Carville's clever phrase.

AS

[Ian Osborne]

It should certainly stop him from suggesting that America's system is less "civilized" than Denmark's if the two are basically the same in this regard, which I suspect they are. It's fine to suggest that this is a bad outcome under any legal system (though I disagree for reasons previously stated), but it's quite hypocritical to argue that Denmark's system is superior to that of the U.S. when 1) he has no idea whether his description of Danish law is accurate, and 2) in the more informed speculation of myself and every other lawyer in this thread, it most likely isn't.

No argument from me there. :D

[Kevin_Lowe]

And there is the critical flaw in your argument. It's not a punishment, it is coercion to force compliance. Comply, and out of jail you go.

This is a distinction without a difference, and hinges on a suspiciously specific use of the term "punishment".

By your usage locking up dissidents is not punishing dissidence, because if they stop dissenting you will let them out. They are being coerced to comply instead, and apparently you can go much further to coerce people to comply than you ever could merely to punish them.

If that's the critical flaw in my argument I'm in good shape.

[clarsct]

Well, Kevin, if there is a better way, then we're all anxious to try it, I assure you. I assume the justice system in Australia/Tasmania is relatively similar to the justice systems of most of Western Society(Willing to be corrected!), so maybe you ought to take some of these ideas to your local representative and see how they pan out.

Perhaps the world could benefit from your example, and many cases like the one confronting poor Mrs. Chadwick could be resolved.

This is a serious suggestion, BTW. If nothing else your attempts may help shed some light on how these things work for the rest of us who aren't lawyers...

[Ian Osborne]

This is a distinction without a difference, and hinges on a suspiciously specific use of the term "punishment".

By your usage locking up dissidents is not punishing dissidence, because if they stop dissenting you will let them out. They are being coerced to comply instead, and apparently you can go much further to coerce people to comply than you ever could merely to punish them.

If that's the critical flaw in my argument I'm in good shape.

Where's the moral equivilence in using the law to force a divorcee to surrender assets he's illegally keeping from his wife, and using the law to surpress political dissent?

[AmateurScientist]

Where's the moral equivilence in using the law to force a divorcee to surrender assets he's illegally keeping from his wife, and using the law to surpress political dissent?

Ian,

Kevin's being stubborn and disingeuous here.

He has the gall to accuse Wildcat (and the rest of us) of using "punishment" suspiciously, but in the same breath uses the word "dissident" in this context. Kevin is fully aware that "dissident" has political connotations, and is customarily used to refer to those who object to or oppose political parties and authorities in executive positions. To use such a term to describe an outlaw who willfully refuses to comply with the lawful orders of the judiciary is stretching the truth to suit his own weak argument.

"Dissident" does not accurately describe Chadwick. Chadwick is not opposing any political authority due to philosophical or ideological differences of opinion. "Outlaw" is far more apt, as Chadwick has deliberately attempted to place himself outside the reach of the law. In this case, of course, I mean the reach of the law of the court which has the ability to divide the marital assets in his divorce. Chadwick goes beyond that instance of trying to subvert the rule of law, and even willfully disobeys the court's lawful orders to appear in court to answer the wife's petition for contempt. Chadwick failed to appear for his contempt hearing three times. Not only that, but once he was found months later and brought into the custody of the local sheriff, he maintained his lies and deception before the court, continuing to conceal the marital assets, and keeping them outside the court's reach. Of course, as we have all noted, Chadwick continues to this day, 11 years later, to conceal them, and to defy the court's orders.

That's not political dissidence, and Kevin knows it. Kevin's being a stubborn ass in this discussion and is trying to "enlighten" us with a ridiculous moral equivalency that simply isn't there. I'm convinced of his dishonest stance in this discussion by his use of the term "dissident" to refer to Chadwick in this instance.

Furthermore, Kevin refuses to acknowledge that Chadwick can be released by voluntary compliance with the law, not by stopping his dissent with a political party or leader. Dissidence has never been Chadwick's misconduct in this case, and characterizing it as such is portraying it in a false and misleading light. Dissidence itself carries no moral baggage; it simply means actively disagreeing with the prevailing political party or leadership. Willful disobeyance with the rule of law itself is hardly equivalent. It does indeed carry moral weight, as it implies that the contemnor in this case believes himself above the law -- he's essentially a practicing anarchist -- or worse, that he will die continuing to spite his ex-wife and the court for his own selfish and childish satisfaction -- to show them that he can. Kevin's bright enough that he isn't mischaracterizing Chadwick's behavior innocently.

It's not worth arguing with Kevin in this thread. His comments and arguments miss the mark by a mile and are trying to get you to miss too.

AS

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ian,

Kevin's being stubborn and disingeuous here.

It's a good thing you are here to read my mind and catch me out, otherwise I might have gotten away with it.

You and Ian both missed the point completely. The point was solely that it is (can I borrow your word?) disingenuous to try to declare that jail time is not a punishment if it is imposed in an attempt to coerce someone. The example of the political dissenter merely demonstrated why this move fails.

The idea that I was anointing Chadwick as a political dissenter originated completely with Ian.


He has the gall to accuse Wildcat (and the rest of us) of using "punishment" suspiciously, but in the same breath uses the word "dissident" in this context. Kevin is fully aware that "dissident" has political connotations, and is customarily used to refer to those who object to or oppose political parties and authorities in executive positions. To use such a term to describe an outlaw who willfully refuses to comply with the lawful orders of the judiciary is stretching the truth to suit his own weak argument.

"Dissident" does not accurately describe Chadwick. Chadwick is not opposing any political authority due to philosophical or ideological differences of opinion. "Outlaw" is far more apt, as Chadwick has deliberately attempted to place himself outside the reach of the law. In this case, of course, I mean the reach of the law of the court which has the ability to divide the marital assets in his divorce. Chadwick goes beyond that instance of trying to subvert the rule of law, and even willfully disobeys the court's lawful orders to appear in court to answer the wife's petition for contempt. Chadwick failed to appear for his contempt hearing three times. Not only that, but once he was found months later and brought into the custody of the local sheriff, he maintained his lies and deception before the court, continuing to conceal the marital assets, and keeping them outside the court's reach. Of course, as we have all noted, Chadwick continues to this day, 11 years later, to conceal them, and to defy the court's orders.

That's not political dissidence, and Kevin knows it. Kevin's being a stubborn ass in this discussion and is trying to "enlighten" us with a ridiculous moral equivalency that simply isn't there. I'm convinced of his dishonest stance in this discussion by his use of the term "dissident" to refer to Chadwick in this instance.

Furthermore, Kevin refuses to acknowledge that Chadwick can be released by voluntary compliance with the law, not by stopping his dissent with a political party or leader. Dissidence has never been Chadwick's misconduct in this case, and characterizing it as such is portraying it in a false and misleading light. Dissidence itself carries no moral baggage; it simply means actively disagreeing with the prevailing political party or leadership. Willful disobeyance with the rule of law itself is hardly equivalent. It does indeed carry moral weight, as it implies that the contemnor in this case believes himself above the law -- he's essentially a practicing anarchist -- or worse, that he will die continuing to spite his ex-wife and the court for his own selfish and childish satisfaction -- to show them that he can. Kevin's bright enough that he isn't mischaracterizing Chadwick's behavior innocently.

It's not worth arguing with Kevin in this thread. His comments and arguments miss the mark by a mile and are trying to get you to miss too.


So none of the above text is relevant to anything.

It does however build my suspicion that your grudge against me has left you unable or unwilling to discuss what I have actually said, let alone to do so in a civil fashion.

[Ian Osborne]

You and Ian both missed the point completely. The point was solely that it is (can I borrow your word?) disingenuous to try to declare that jail time is not a punishment if it is imposed in an attempt to coerce someone. The example of the political dissenter merely demonstrated why this move fails.

The idea that I was anointing Chadwick as a political dissenter originated completely with Ian.

I didn't say you were 'anointing Chadwick as a political dissenter', I said you were making an inappropriate moral comparison.

• Jailing someone for not letting go of something that's NOT rightfully his = good.

• Jailing someone for speaking their mind and taking a political view contrary to that of the ruling party = bad.

This is not hypocracy. Why? Because in the first case, the jailed citizen is taking away the rights of others (specifically his wife), yet in the second, he's having his own rights taken away, namely free speech. Jailing someone to force compliance is NOT intrinsically wrong. Its morality depends on the specifics of what the prisoner is being forced to comply with.

Would you say a judge who imposes a fine is no better than a mugger? Is a judge that sends someone to jail morally guilty of kidnapping? Is the death sentence murder?

[ponderingturtle]

I think you could classify him as a dissident, namely over the idea that women deserve money in divorce cases, when they actually deserve nothing. As such he is clearly a political prisoner. It becomes so much easier when you stop falling for the fallacy that women are equal to men.

It's True:)

[AmateurScientist]

It does however build my suspicion that your grudge against me has left you unable or unwilling to discuss what I have actually said, let alone to do so in a civil fashion.

Oh, never mind that I responded to you in considerable depth very politely 4 times in this thread first. It was only then that I mentioned that you had inserted a cheap shot at lawyers with your gratuitous accomplice remark, Kevin. Please get your sequence of events right, and accept that you threw the first punch in this thread. Trying to characterize my taking offense at that as a grudge is disregarding that your remark was hardly charitable or benign.

If labelling your persistence in refusing to grasp that Chadwick isn't being punished after several of us have patiently explained why (although, as I admitted pages ago, it has the effect of punishment, but only because of Chadwick's continued defiance, not because of the court's intent) as being a "stubborn ass" is uncivil, then this time I will plead guilt.

Please feel free to report me to the civility police at JREF. I will accept my censure with the appropriate remorse.

AS

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Will this thread continue for 11 years? :p

[slingblade]

Yes, but every one of us has the power to get out of it at any time. :p

[varwoche]

You and Ian both missed the point completely. It seems to be a frequent occurrence that your points are missed by others.

Yes, but every one of us has the power to get out of it at any time. :p LOL!

[Marquis de Carabas]

Yes, but every one of us has the power to get out of it at any time. :p
Unless we're in Denmark. Then we'd just have 16 more days.

[AmateurScientist]

Will this thread continue for 11 years? :p

You put up $2.5 mil for me when I get out, and I'll keep it up for 111 years.

Of course, by then, with inflation, it will buy me half a Big Mac. Hey, buddy, got a spare $2.5 mil?

AS

[Kevin_Lowe]

I didn't say you were 'anointing Chadwick as a political dissenter', I said you were making an inappropriate moral comparison.

I'm not sure you actually read my response.

I was not saying Chadwick was a political prisoner, nor was I comparing him to one. (Did I mention I tend to have to repeat myself in these threads? I even have to repeat myself that I am repeating myself).

The dissident comment was solely to illustrate the illogic of claiming that coercing someone with jail time is not punishing them. Anything you want to read into it beyond the claim that (prison for the purpose of coercion = punishment) is entirely your own imaginative creation.

Is there anything unclear now?

[drkitten]

The dissident comment was solely to illustrate the illogic of claiming that coercing someone with jail time is not punishing them. Anything you want to read into it beyond the claim that (prison for the purpose of coercion = punishment) is entirely your own imaginative creation.

Is there anything unclear now?

Yes, there is.

What do you think Chadwick is being punished for?

Hint: he's not being punished for "stealing" two and a half million dollars.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh, never mind that I responded to you in considerable depth very politely 4 times in this thread first. It was only then that I mentioned that you had inserted a cheap shot at lawyers with your gratuitous accomplice remark, Kevin. Please get your sequence of events right, and accept that you threw the first punch in this thread. Trying to characterize my taking offense at that as a grudge is disregarding that your remark was hardly charitable or benign.

I'm not going to play the "Mum, he started it!" game with you. If you think something I said justifies your behaviour I can only suggest that you consider, as an alternative, acting like an adult.


If labelling your persistence in refusing to grasp that Chadwick isn't being punished after several of us have patiently explained why (although, as I admitted pages ago, it has the effect of punishment, but only because of Chadwick's continued defiance, not because of the court's intent) as being a "stubborn ass" is uncivil, then this time I will plead guilt.


I don't disagree with your position because I do not grasp it, but because it is sophistry. Locking a person up until they stop doing X is punishing them for doing X in an important and undeniable sense. If we design a system we are responsible for all of its outcomes, even the unexpected ones caused by irrational or mendacious agents.


Please feel free to report me to the civility police at JREF. I will accept my censure with the appropriate remorse.


I think it would be in keeping with the spirit of the thread if you restrained yourself from posting until you can be civil, even if it takes you eleven years or more to get to that point.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, there is.

What do you think Chadwick is being punished for?

Hint: he's not being punished for "stealing" two and a half million dollars.

Hint: I'm tired of repeating myself.

The issue is one person holding on to money they should not be holding on to. How we deal with that is a matter for society to decide, and we have to accept responsibility for all the outcomes of the system we create to deal with such matters.

"But the rules say..." is meaningless if we are examing the effects of the system of rules taken as a whole.

[drkitten]

The issue is one person holding on to money they should not be holding on to.

This statement is factually wrong -- and all the rest of your misunderstanding flows from that.

The issue is not one person holding onto money.

The issue is one person refusing to obey a lawful order of the court.

As you point out, Chadwick -- or any equally stubborn person -- could be jailed indefinitely for $50 as for $2.5 million. He could equally be jailed indefinitely for failure to respond to a subpoena to testify, failure to pay a court-ordered fine, failure to pay child support, et cetera, et cetera.

This is not about the money. This is about whether a single person has the right/authority to defy the judiciary. And the short answer is -- he doesn't.

Notice the key aspects of what's really going on. Chadwick was issued an order. He refused to comply. He was presented with several opportunities to challenge the validity of the order, and did not bother to avail himself of them. He has also been presented with several opportunities to prove that he cannot comply with the order, and has failed to demonstrate that, either. It doesn't matter what the order is, as long as it's legal (which it is), and Chadwick is willfully and stubbornly refusing to obey.

[NoZed Avenger]

I think it would be in keeping with the spirit of the thread if you restrained yourself from posting until you can be civil, even if it takes you eleven years or more to get to that point.

Is that an example of the civility we're going for?

[AmateurScientist]

Hint: I'm tired of repeating myself.


Hint: Perhaps it is you who needs to re-examine your position, not everyone else who has patiently tried to explain it to you, but has been unsuccessful in getting through to you.

Hint: You are not the only one repeating yourself.

AS

[WildCat]

How we deal with that is a matter for society to decide, and we have to accept responsibility for all the outcomes of the system we create to deal with such matters.
Finally! Society has decided long ago that what is happening to Chadwick is acceptable and appropriate. And there is currently no widespread debate on the matter. So I guess this thread is settled!

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I can see how it's far from ideal to hold a man for 11 years over usch an issue, but any other solutions I'm seeing are evven worse and basically send the message that if you're stubborn enough, you eventually get away with whatever you want.

[DanishDynamite]

Just to tentativly round things off, I'd like to make a few statements:

1) I didn't drag Danish law into this question. I felt (and feel) that a system of justice worthy of the name shouldn't allow this travesty to occur. I'm still amazed that so many others (especially Americans) feel it is wonderfully just.

2) Though I didn't drag Danish law into this affair, I let myself be dragged into responding in regard to Danish law, knowing little about it. I luckily have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer. I shall ask him tomorrow whether Danish law is as unjust as American law in this regard. And you will be the first to hear his answer. :)

3) No matter what my brother-in-law's answer may be, holding someone in jail indefinately for the non-crime of "contempt of court" is little different in my eyes from holding a suspected terrorist in jail indefinately, denying him his day in court.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Assuming one was holding a terrorist until such time as he said, "OK, I'll stop being all jihady now" and then releasing him, then you are right. They are remarkably parallel situations.

[DanishDynamite]

Assuming one was holding a terrorist until such time as he said, "OK, I'll stop being all jihady now" and then releasing him, then you are right. They are remarkably parallel situations.
Indeed. They are frighteningly similar.

[drkitten]

3) No matter what my brother-in-law's answer may be, holding someone in jail indefinately for the non-crime of "contempt of court" is little different in my eyes from holding a suspected terrorist in jail indefinately, denying him his day in court.

It seems to me that there's at least two substantive differences.

First, a "suspected" terrorist is not known to have done anything wrong. In fact, the whole reason to have his day in court is to allow someone to look at his actions and to decide whether or not he's committed the actions of which he's accused. By contrast, there's no doubt that Chadwick is in contempt of court and is refusing to obey the court's order. (And, in fact, he's had at least eight difference "days in court" to try to prove that the order isn't legitimate, and he's failed in all of them.) So you may not agree with the decision that the courts have taken, but you can't claim that he's been denied his day in court in any meaningful way.

Second, our hypothetical "suspected terrorist" is suspected of having completed a particular criminal act. This means that whatever he has done, he has done ("Quod scripsit, scripsit.") and that there's nothing he can do to make it all better again. Chadwick, by contrast, is continuing his act of contumacy; at any point, he can cease his defiance and comply with the court order. It's the difference between doing something wrong and having done something wrong -- in the former case, the first step must be to stop doing whatever is wrong....

[DanishDynamite]

It seems to me that there's at least two substantive differences.
Pray tell!
First, a "suspected" terrorist is not known to have done anything wrong. In fact, the whole reason to have his day in court is to allow someone to look at his actions and to decide whether or not he's committed the actions of which he's accused. By contrast, there's no doubt that Chadwick is in contempt of court and is refusing to obey the court's order.
Yes, he is being held in jail, not because it has been shown that he has commited any crime, but because someone thinks he has. Just as suspected terrorists are held just because they are "suspected terrorists".
(And, in fact, he's had at least eight difference "days in court" to try to prove that the order isn't legitimate, and he's failed in all of them.) So you may not agree with the decision that the courts have taken, but you can't claim that he's been denied his day in court in any meaningful way.
Certainly I can. So far his case has not been debated in a court of law. The only thing which has been debated is whether some authority "thinks" he may be hiding something.
Second, our hypothetical "suspected terrorist" is suspected of having completed a particular criminal act. This means that whatever he has done, he has done ("Quod scripsit, scripsit.") and that there's nothing he can do to make it all better again. Chadwick, by contrast, is continuing his act of contumacy; at any point, he can cease his defiance and comply with the court order. It's the difference between doing something wrong and having done something wrong -- in the former case, the first step must be to stop doing whatever is wrong....
There is no difference. As you have just shown.

[drkitten]

Yes, he is being held in jail, not because it has been shown that he has commited any crime, but because someone thinks he has. Just as suspected terrorists are held just because they are "suspected terrorists".

Er, no. No one thinks he's "committed a crime," in a technical sense. In the loose sense that you seem to be using it, he's been proven by eight different appeals and something like fifty separate hearings to be in continuing civil contempt.

His "crime," remember, is not stealing the money. His "crime" is failing to deliver it to the court as demanded, or failing that, to account for his failure in a satisfactory manner.

There is, literally, no doubt that he failed to obey the order of the court. He didn't even show up to the hearing as the court demanded.


Certainly I can. So far his case has not been debated in a court of law.

Yes, it has. Nearly fifty different times.

What would you expect him to say if/when his case were "debated in a court of law"? What would he say that he hasn't already said, unsuccessfully, at an appellate hearing?

The only thing which has been debated is whether some authority "thinks" he may be hiding something.

... nd whether or not they are well-founded in their beliefs, and whether or not the authority has the legal right to hold him under the circumstances.

It's a matter of law, for example, that if he cannot comply with the order -- for example, if he is not hiding anything and therefore has nothing to reveal, or alternatively if the money is beyond his control and he cannot disgorge it -- then he must be released.

But the court is under no obligation to take his simple say-so. He has appealed on exactly those grounds, and the appellate court has looked, first at the evidence upon which the divorce court found him in contempt, and second, upon the evidence Chadwick submitted -- and didn't believe Chadwick.

[Kevin_Lowe]

This statement is factually wrong -- and all the rest of your misunderstanding flows from that.

No. You're still making the same error.

I'm saying "Monopoly is a bad family game because people can be eliminated from the game long before it ends leaving them with nothing to do".

You're replying "This is factually wrong, and Monopoly is the best possible family game. The rules say that when you go bankrupt you are out. You aren't being eliminated from the game because Monopoly is a bad game, you are being eliminated because you ran out of money".

[drkitten]

No. You're still making the same error.

You're right that one of is in error.

But it's not me.



I'm saying "Monopoly is a bad family game because people can be eliminated from the game long before it ends leaving them with nothing to do".

You're replying "This is factually wrong, and Monopoly is the best possible family game. The rules say that when you go bankrupt you are out. You aren't being eliminated from the game because Monopoly is a bad game, you are being eliminated because you ran out of money".

No. You're saying "Othello is a bad family game, because people can be eliminated from the game long before it ends" -- and I, and the actual lawyers, are pointing out that you don't have a clue about what the Othello game really is.

Drop the analogies; they're not helping you.

Just try explaining, in simple words, why if person A is continuing to injure person B, person A should not be forced to stop it.

[DanishDynamite]

Er, no. No one thinks he's "committed a crime," in a technical sense. In the loose sense that you seem to be using it, he's been proven by eight different appeals and something like fifty separate hearings to be in continuing civil contempt.
As I said, someone thinks he might be guilty of a crime.

How can you not understand the difference?
His "crime," remember, is not stealing the money. His "crime" is failing to deliver it to the court as demanded, or failing that, to account for his failure in a satisfactory manner.
Exactly. There is no crime, just a person of authority keeping him in jail because he thinks there was a crime.
There is, literally, no doubt that he failed to obey the order of the court. He didn't even show up to the hearing as the court demanded.
There is, litterally, no crime being heard.

[WildCat]

As I said, someone thinks he might be guilty of a crime.
Who?

How can you not understand the difference?
I do understand the diference between a crime and contempt of the court. You're the one who's confused.

Exactly. There is no crime, just a person of authority keeping him in jail because he thinks there was a crime.
Wrong.

There is, litterally, no crime being heard.
Correct, but not for the reasons you think.

[DanishDynamite]

Who?
The judge, in one case. The military in the other.
I do understand the diference between a crime and contempt of the court. You're the one who's confused.
I understand the difference too. Which is why I don't understand that the "sentence" (jail time) is the same or worse.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Correct, but not for the reasons you think.
Enlighten me.

[Kevin_Lowe]

No. You're saying "Othello is a bad family game, because people can be eliminated from the game long before it ends" -- and I, and the actual lawyers, are pointing out that you don't have a clue about what the Othello game really is.


This is simply factually false. I don't even know how you could possibly believe this if you have been reading the thread.

There is no contention over the facts of the case or the facts of the law.

I'm pointing out that the result of the system as a whole in this case seems suboptimal, and so the system deserves further scrutiny. You, Wildcat, Ian and AS are saying over and over again "You can't see the tree for the forest! The rules say Chadwick should be in jail! Stop focusing on the larger picture!".

It's society's job to fix the rules of the game so that they produce outcomes that are (among other considerations) socially beneficial, even if one of the players is someone like Chadwick. Maybe the current set of rules is the best possible set, but we have yet to establish that.


Drop the analogies; they're not helping you.


Your mind-reading powers are even greater than AS's, if you can read the minds of everyone reading this thread to find out what works and what doesn't.


Just try explaining, in simple words, why if person A is continuing to injure person B, person A should not be forced to stop it.

Isn't the whole point that Chadwick has not been forced to stop it, and in fact has been doing it for eleven years and counting?

[RandFan]

I felt (and feel) that a system of justice worthy of the name shouldn't allow this travesty to occur.What Travesty? Your declaring it a travesty doesn't make it so. This is not argument it is rhetoric and it is not persuasive (rhetoric rarely is to skeptics).

I'm still amazed that so many others (especially Americans) feel it is wonderfully just. This is just more rhetoric and I'm amazed that you can't understand simple arguments.

The man has the means to free himself.
He is biting his nose to spite his face.
This is ongoing as every day the courts give him another opportunity to comply.
He has been given rights and access to appelate and state supreme courts.
He has (to a degree) availed himself of his rights and has presented evidence as to why he should be freed.
All of the judges have weighed the evidence and have made a finding against him (as is their responsibility).Given all that it is damn hard to call this a travesty.

3) No matter what my brother-in-law's answer may be, holding someone in jail indefinately for the non-crime of "contempt of court" is little different in my eyes from holding a suspected terrorist in jail indefinately, denying him his day in court.?? Huh?

Do you even bother to read the posts? Look, if you are not going to be sincere then why should anyone take you seriously? I've never thought of you as a troll but you are coming awfully close to that.

This man has appeared before a judge, appellate court judges, supreme court judges. These judges are triers of fact. The defendant has had the opportunity to defend himself before these triers. For you to continue to demand that he has not had his day in court is simply being obtuse.

Most of us who disagree with you are unlikely to change our minds because you are not making any compelling arguments why we should. You come here with baseless allegations that are easily rebutted and you haven't the wherewithal to realize that the debate is over.

If this man did not have the means to free himself I would agree with you.
If this man did not have the means to appeal the decisions against him I would agree with you.

IMO, these are the two strongest arguments against your claim that this is a travesty. The man is stupidly trying to subvert justice. Why should anyone have any sympathy? And please, spare me the sophistry. It's getting real old DD.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I'm pointing out that the result of the system as a whole in this case seems suboptimal, and so the system deserves further scrutiny.

No, the results are optimal. The "system" is working as designed and desired. No further scrutiniy is required.

It's society's job to fix the rules of the game so that they produce outcomes that are (among other considerations) socially beneficial, even if one of the players is someone like Chadwick.

That outcome has been achieved.

Maybe the current set of rules is the best possible set, but we have yet to establish that.

Yes, we have established that. Why can't you get that through your head?

[ponderingturtle]

Just to tentativly round things off, I'd like to make a few statements:

1) I didn't drag Danish law into this question. I felt (and feel) that a system of justice worthy of the name shouldn't allow this travesty to occur. I'm still amazed that so many others (especially Americans) feel it is wonderfully just.


You are not proposeing any solutions, other than people should be able to freely ignore the courts. Please tell me after what period of time does it become justice for him to get away with ignoreing court orders to turn over money to his exwife? You are just going "THis is unjust" but you never do anything to establish what you think a just outcome in this situation would be.


2) Though I didn't drag Danish law into this affair, I let myself be dragged into responding in regard to Danish law, knowing little about it. I luckily have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer. I shall ask him tomorrow whether Danish law is as unjust as American law in this regard. And you will be the first to hear his answer. :)

3) No matter what my brother-in-law's answer may be, holding someone in jail indefinately for the non-crime of "contempt of court" is little different in my eyes from holding a suspected terrorist in jail indefinately, denying him his day in court.

Wrong, the person who is there for contempt of court can leave when ever he chooses. They are not being held indefintily he is being held until he complies with the orders of the court. He has simply decided that he will be in jail indefinitly.

[ponderingturtle]

Indeed. They are frighteningly similar.

You need your sarcasm detector fixed.

[ponderingturtle]

As I said, someone thinks he might be guilty of a crime.

How can you not understand the difference?

Exactly. There is no crime, just a person of authority keeping him in jail because he thinks there was a crime.

There is, litterally, no crime being heard.

Wow, apeals courts and such are now not actual courts. I would never have known that.

So we are back to the idea that perfect justice results form people complying with the courts and not being spiteful bastards. In fact in denmark they don't have any civil decisions at all, people ar just that nice to each other.

[ponderingturtle]

This is simply factually false. I don't even know how you could possibly believe this if you have been reading the thread.

There is no contention over the facts of the case or the facts of the law.

I'm pointing out that the result of the system as a whole in this case seems suboptimal, and so the system deserves further scrutiny. You, Wildcat, Ian and AS are saying over and over again "You can't see the tree for the forest! The rules say Chadwick should be in jail! Stop focusing on the larger picture!".

Wrong, people are prefectly willing to listen to your suggestions about what might be a better solution, but you are not offering one. Now are you saying that Tort law is entirely unjust and that ever depriving someone of thier money is wrong?

If not then what types of force are acceptable to gain compliance? What happens when they don't work?

No one is answering that all they are saying is "This is unjust" personaly as issues of injustice I would take more issues with drug laws that get written with the arguements "we don't have enough studdies showing this to be useful, so we will make it illegal to do any of these studies"

[ponderingturtle]

No, the results are optimal. The "system" is working as designed and desired. No further scrutiniy is required.



That outcome has been achieved.



Yes, we have established that. Why can't you get that through your head?

Exactly as can be shown that a large majority of people think that this is an apropriate outcome.

[NoZed Avenger]

So if Denmark allows contempt of court to hold people for more than four weeks, is it uncivilized and a place where no one cares about justice - sorry, Justice?

[WildCat]

I didn't drag Danish law into this question.
The only difference between a civilized society, such as the Danish, and the American society is in the details.
:rolleyes:

[marksman]

Yes, he is being held in jail, not because it has been shown that he has commited any crime, but because someone thinks he has.
Everyone in the world currently in jail is there because someone thinks they committed a crime, regardless of whather they actually did. The someone might be a jury or a judge or, in the case of Mr. Chadwick, more than two dozen seperate judges who have reviewed his case.

Some of them (like the Guantanamo detainees) have had no opportunity to present evidence. Some of them have had one opportunity (the trial or hearing). Some, like Chadwick, have had eight opportunities.

Chadwick is not in jail because he is "suspected" of violating the judge's order. He is in jail because he failed to rebut the evidence presented by his ex-wife's lawyers at the hearing that he did violate the order. This evidence has been reviewed by more than two dozen judges in more than eight courts.

Please ask your brother the following questions.
1) When someone violates a judicial order in a non-criminal case, are they entitled to a jury trial before punishment for such violation?
2) If someone violates a judicial order than can be cured, can the judge order him to cure the violation?
3) If the answer to #2 is "yes", what is the result if the person refuses to cure that violation.

I suspect that, like every nation in the Western world the answers will be "No", "Yes" and "They can be jailed until they cure the violation."

So far his case has not been debated in a court of law.
His case has been debated in at least eight courts of law, according to the very article you cited (but either did not read or comprehend).

The only thing which has been debated is whether some authority "thinks" he may be hiding something.
Which is exacrly what happens in every trial and hearing. The only question is who is the authority? A judge? A jury? A hearing examiner? An arbitrator?

[MG1962]

As an outsider looking in - It all seems pretty straight forward to me.

He can either admit the money is xxxxx

Or show documentation to explain where the money went.

Using a sports analogy - The court has to have some way to make people follow a rule. Otherwise say a soccer game. Everyone will be out to break legs. And the ref blows his whistle and says "Bad boy"

Player says "Whatcha ya gonna do about it" Then proceeds to attack another player.

As explained the guy has get out of jail cards, including the orginal judge was a goose. And has been pointed out - He has failed umpteening to do that.

The final thing to remember - American Law didn't just apppear. It's roots go back hundreds of years. And for the vast amount of that time, clever lawyers have been looking for loopholes.

So if what is happening to this guy is either unjust or illegal - someone would have found the escape hatch by now

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wrong, people are prefectly willing to listen to your suggestions about what might be a better solution, but you are not offering one.


There was a brief and useful discussion some pages back where we were talking about exactly what powers the court in question does and does not have, but it petered out. I've also already made suggestions about what outcomes would be preferable, and nobody followed up on that either.


Now are you saying that Tort law is entirely unjust and that ever depriving someone of thier money is wrong?

I suppose this is the Politics forum, and I should expect risible straw men.


If not then what types of force are acceptable to gain compliance? What happens when they don't work?


Excellent questions. We could, in theory, discuss them. The progress of the thread so far has given me little confidence that we will.


No one is answering that all they are saying is "This is unjust" personaly as issues of injustice I would take more issues with drug laws that get written with the arguements "we don't have enough studdies showing this to be useful, so we will make it illegal to do any of these studies"

Again, this is the Politics forum, so I should expect the "Why are you talking about X when Y is a bigger problem?" threadjack.

[ponderingturtle]

There was a brief and useful discussion some pages back where we were talking about exactly what powers the court in question does and does not have, but it petered out. I've also already made suggestions about what outcomes would be preferable, and nobody followed up on that either.
THe ones I remember would alll have been the functional equivelent of saying "chadwick can keep the money". He is what 70, you can not get the money from his salary, as he is likely self employed. IF you let him go you are giving up entirely on the money. So how long does someone need to spend in prison to invalidate a Tort decision?



I suppose this is the Politics forum, and I should expect risible straw men.

Not really, the alternatives to this are to simply forget about the tort decision, and give up on getting the money from him.


Excellent questions. We could, in theory, discuss them. The progress of the thread so far has given me little confidence that we will.

Great evasion.


Again, this is the Politics forum, so I should expect the "Why are you talking about X when Y is a bigger problem?" threadjack.


Interesting, you realize you posted all that and didn't really say anything substantial, and certainly didn't commit to anything.

[Kevin_Lowe]

THe ones I remember would alll have been the functional equivelent of saying "chadwick can keep the money". He is what 70, you can not get the money from his salary, as he is likely self employed. IF you let him go you are giving up entirely on the money. So how long does someone need to spend in prison to invalidate a Tort decision?

I think the claim that "IF you let him go you are giving up entirely on the money" is dubious, given that we have ways of pursuing debtors other than prison. Assuming by "let him go" you mean "do something other than keeping him in prison", not "let him off completely".


Not really, the alternatives to this are to simply forget about the tort decision, and give up on getting the money from him.


You seem to have achieved certainty that there are no other alternatives. If you could share the process by which you achieved this certainty, and it is a rational process, then we could wrap this thread up nicely.


Great evasion.


It's no evasion, I have already posted an attempt at answering those questions in good faith. You were more than welcome to scroll back a little and engage with what I said, if that was what you wanted to do.


Interesting, you realize you posted all that and didn't really say anything substantial, and certainly didn't commit to anything.

It's a bit much to make a post which could be a poster child for the shoddy quality of debate in this subforum, then claim I've said nothing of substance when my reply is to point out its shortcomings.

If you want to read the substance of my position again it's all right here in this thread, just scroll up.

[Skeptic]

Assuming one was holding a terrorist until such time as he said, "OK, I'll stop being all jihady now" and then releasing him, then you are right. They are remarkably parallel situations.

Indeed. They are frighteningly similar.

Er, not really. Whatever one thinks about Gitmo's detainees, the complaint there is that the government is denying them the right (presuming they have one, which I do not believe) for a trial. Here, we have the exact opposite situation: it is the accused who simply refuses to obey by any court order or to go on trial.

[NoZed Avenger]

Any word from the 29th about Danish law on contempt of court?

[Skeptic]

There's also the matter of infinite regress: if you cannot be found guilty of contempt of court without a jury trial, what if you don't show up (or threathen) the jurors in your trial for contempt of court? Can you be found guilty of contempt of court for that trial by the judge?

According to Danish Dynamite's logic, apparently not: if the original judge didn't have authority to find you guilty of contempt of court, neither does this one. So apparently the state now has to get another jury and another trial before it can convict you for contempt of court in your original contempt of court trial. But you can the accused can simply force the state to repeat the process ad inifnitum by refusing to cooperate with that trial, too.

Since the criminal can just keep saying "I don't wanna!" as long as he wants, eventually the state will run out of money, or judges, or juries, and the guy will walk since, despite having 10,217 trials against him (all but the first two determining solely if he is in contempt of court in a previous contempt of court trial), none of them resulted in any conviction, and thus we must presume innocence.

There seems to be a slight problem with the "only a jury in court can decide if I'm in contempt of court" idea.

[Marquis de Carabas]

There is no infinite regress. Four weeks after the original charge, it all goes away.

[ponderingturtle]

There is no infinite regress. Four weeks after the original charge, it all goes away.

So after 4 weeks he gets to run away with the money? And this is supposted to be just?

[varwoche]

According to Danish Dynamite's logic, apparently not: if the original judge didn't have authority to find you guilty of contempt of court, neither does this one. So apparently the state now has to get another jury and another trial before it can convict you for contempt of court in your original contempt of court trial. But you can the accused can simply force the state to repeat the process ad inifnitum by refusing to cooperate with that trial, too. I raised this point N pages ago. Maybe you'll get a response this time.

[Skeptic]

So after 4 weeks he gets to run away with the money? And this is supposted to be just?

I doubt very much that Danish law actually says that.

[Marquis de Carabas]

So after 4 weeks he gets to run away with the money? And this is supposted to be just?
The Danish justice system is run by Domino's Pizza. "If you're not convicted by a jury in four weeks or less, then you're free!"

[ponderingturtle]

I doubt very much that Danish law actually says that.

But if you let him go, what are you doing to prevent that event.

[WildCat]

Well DD, how did that talk w/ your brother-in-law go? Are Danes free to ignore court orders indefinitely, so long as they spend their 4 weeks in jail?

[Skeptic]

The problem with making up "humane" criminal laws your country allegedly has, just in order to make your country look more "progressive" than the "evil" USA, occurs when you don't think in advance what the real-world consequences of such laws would be. One might as well brag that, in Denmark, people are free to drive on either the left or the right side of the road, unlike the opressive USA that forces you to drive only on the right side.

[WildCat]

Bumping for DanishDynamite... DD, has your brother-in-law confirmed that Denmark is not a civilized country? Is that why you've abandoned this thread?

[DanishDynamite]

Any word from the 29th about Danish law on contempt of court?
Sorry, I haven't had a chance to talk with my brother-in-law. Tomorrow, (Thursday) I should be in with a good chance. If I don't contact him tomorrow, I shall endevour to wade through the Internet info on this stuff, personally. In any case, I'll reply on the matter tomorrow. Promise.

[AmateurScientist]

Sorry, I haven't had a chance to talk with my brother-in-law. Tomorrow, (Thursday) I should be in with a good chance. If I don't contact him tomorrow, I shall endevour to wade through the Internet info on this stuff, personally. In any case, I'll reply on the matter tomorrow. Promise.

Bump for DD, because he promised to get back to us today.

AS

[Mojo]

Update on English law:

It used to be the case that a contemnor could be imprisoned indefinitely. According to Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 3rd edition p. 1028: "In the case of civil contempt, where it was desired to punish for past acts, a fixed term was generally imposed; where it was sought to coerce the contemnor into obeying an outstanding order of the court, an indefinite period of imprisonment would be regarded as more appropriate."

However, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made indefinite sentences illegal. Sentences for contempt must now be for a fixed term not exceeding two years.

I can't find any indication of what would happen if, after serving a fixed term sentence, a contemnor continued to defy a court order.

[AmateurScientist]

Update on English law:

It used to be the case that a contemnor could be imprisoned indefinitely. According to Arlidge, Eady & Smith on Contempt, 3rd edition p. 1028: "In the case of civil contempt, where it was desired to punish for past acts, a fixed term was generally imposed; where it was sought to coerce the contemnor into obeying an outstanding order of the court, an indefinite period of imprisonment would be regarded as more appropriate."

However, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 made indefinite sentences illegal. Sentences for contempt must now be for a fixed term not exceeding two years.

I can't find any indication of what would happen if, after serving a fixed term sentence, a contemnor continued to defy a court order.

Interesting. Thanks.

To distinguish between English law and American law, in the US, our courts make a definition distinction between civil and criminal contempt. It is somewhat confusing, because criminal contempt might make it sound like it arises out of a criminal case, but of course it does not necessarily have to. In US law, the distinguishing characteristic between civil and criminal contempt is whether or not the contempt is complete or continuing in nature. A complete contempt is criminal and may be punished for a short, fixed period of time for each instance of contempt, usually 5 or 10 days. Holding a contemor for an ongoing civil contempt is not punishment, and as far as I know, there aren't any states which have limited the time period for holding a contemnor for an ongoing contempt. There have been many instances in which someone was kept in jail well beyond the 10 day period for criminal contempt. It is not that uncommon for recalcitrant contemnors to spend months in jail. Susan McDougall is a famous contemnor who immediately comes to mind. I believe she spent a few months behind bars, presumably covering for her husband and the President.

Furthermore, I'm not aware of any legislative act limiting courts' ability to hold a contemnor indefinitely.

AS

[Furious]

Sounds like the Netherlands have a distinction without a difference.

Danish law has no concept of "contempt of court" in the sense that the attornies or the people involved can say whatever they damn well feel like:

http://www.interights.org/doc/Netherlands.pdf#search=%22netherlands%20contempt%2 0of%20court%22

They leave it up to the professional organization (I assume its the American equivalent of the Bar) to discipline their lawyers.


However, they do appear to have the concept of "court order":

http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/DoingBusiness/ExploreTopics/EnforcingContracts/Economies/netherlands.pdf

See points 41, 48, 72, 76, 89, 92, 94, and 105. It appears one judge has the authority to issue them, though this document does not get into too much detail how that is enforced or if there are time limits.

I've run out of time to look for more, but this should get the discussion rolling again. :)

[Furious]

And the Danish aren't the Dutch. I'll try to dig out of this hole. /blush

[Ian Osborne]

And the Danish aren't the Dutch. I'll try to dig out of this hole. /blush

Are you American, by any chance? ;)

[Furious]

Are you American, by any chance? ;)

Of course. ;)

I'd also like to point out that I've made similar errors with regards to North and South Dakota, and I live right next door in freaking Minnesota.

I attribute these types of errors to being American, blonde, and, according to my significant other, being male is likely also a contributing factor.

[Ian Osborne]

I attribute these types of errors to being American, blonde, and, according to my significant other, being male is likely also a contributing factor.

Hey, I'm blonde too. Can you type slower? I can't read very fast...

[Furious]

Some interesting digging on Danish law.


For instance, due to the nature of the court system, you are generally allowed only one appeal:

As a general rule a case can be appealed only once and indeed very small cases cannot be appealed at all. If the decision concerns questions of general public interest the Board of Appeal may dispense from these rules and grant leave of appeal.

http://www.domstol.dk/page17.aspx#s933


Also, the district courts only have one official judge, but lay judges may sit on the case and affect the outcome.

Also, in the future, all civil cases will have a panel of three judges:

District courts sitting in panels. Today, civil disputes heard by a district court are always decided by a single judge. In future, the district court will sit in panels of three judges in certain civil cases.

http://www.domstol.dk/page28245.aspx

The Danes don't have seperate criminal and civil courts, so everything is tried in the same court system.

Oh yeah, and all judges are appointed for life by the Queen. :)

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Courts_of_Denmark

Anwyay, with those musings out of the way, Denmark does have the concept of a single judge issuing a court order to physically obtain assets, but once again I'm not sure on the time limits or how enforcement is handled:

http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreTopics/EnforcingContracts/CaseStudy.aspx?economyid=56

See point 13. It appears the judge can court order the bank to turn over assets, but I have yet to find anything that states what happens when a party refuses to disclose what bank their assets are held in.

[AmateurScientist]

Here's a real world example of criminal contempt allegations. They involve Kim Bassinger and her child custody dispute with former husband Alec Baldwin. Bassinger is charged in California with 12 counts of criminal contempt for alleged violations of provisions concerning their daughter which were in the court's final custody order. Bassinger faces up to 60 days in jail (5 days per count) and up to a $12,000 fine ($1,000.00 per count).

She has plead not guilty, and it sounds like she won't even appear at her own trial. Note that this is not civil contempt like in Chadwick's case, as the allegations concern past actions (or omissions, which means failure to carry out a legal duty she had to Baldwin) which are already complete. There is no way for Bassinger to purge the alleged contempt by complying now. That's why this isn't a civil contempt action.

Also, note that I misspoke earlier when I said criminal contempt is not a crime. In my state, it must be brought by verified petition supported by facts and served upon the alleged contemnor, with an opportunity to respond and be heard at a bench trial, but there is no need for an indictment, information, or complaint, which are the usual documents required for charging someone with a criminal offense. I don't know what charging instrument is required in California, but since it's a crime the standard of proof in the case in order to find her guilty is beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's curious that Baldwin intends to appear at the trial, but Bassinger has waived her right to appear. Is she that confident that Baldwin's case is unfounded? How else is she going to rebut his testimony?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/10/05/people.basinger.ap/index.html

AS

[NoZed Avenger]

. . .

[Wheezebucket]

I can't believe Kim Bassinger is 52 years old (according to the article). That's crazy!

Oh yeah, and, uh...legal...stuff.

Seriously though, 52? Wow.