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

[DanishDynamite]

Just read this story (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/17/chadwick.divorce.ap/index.html) on CNN. If I understand it correctly, a husband in a divorce case has so far been in jail for 11 years (!!!!) due to a contempt of court charge. Am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone else think this is insane?

[Katana]

Yes, it's insane! Who has sex exclusively at 7:30am on Tuesdays and Thursdays?

But in past interviews, she has described a home life controlled intensely by her husband, with rationed toilet paper (six sheets per bathroom visit) and sex (7:30 a.m., Tuesdays and Thursdays).

Seriously, this is a bizarre story.

[fuelair]

Just read this story (http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/09/17/chadwick.divorce.ap/index.html) on CNN. If I understand it correctly, a husband in a divorce case has so far been in jail for 11 years (!!!!) due to a contempt of court charge. Am I understanding this correctly? Does anyone else think this is insane?

My problem with it is (again if nothing was incorrectly stated), he is being imprisoned for a crime that cannot be proven (i.e. he is imprisoned because he can't prove it wasn't committed even though they can't prove it was.) And, since no physical harm is part of it (I do not care if she is being "cheated" out of the money) he should be out - and should have been out as soon as they could not tie him legally to the money.

[DanishDynamite]

My problem with it is (again if nothing was incorrectly stated), he is being imprisoned for a crime that cannot be proven (i.e. he is imprisoned because he can't prove it wasn't committed even though they can't prove it was.) And, since no physical harm is part of it (I do not care if she is being "cheated" out of the money) he should be out - and should have been out as soon as they could not tie him legally to the money.
Indeed. It seems completely insane. Can someone be held indefinitely in jail as long as they are judged to be "in contempt of court"?

[AmateurScientist]

My problem with it is (again if nothing was incorrectly stated), he is being imprisoned for a crime that cannot be proven (i.e. he is imprisoned because he can't prove it wasn't committed even though they can't prove it was.) And, since no physical harm is part of it (I do not care if she is being "cheated" out of the money) he should be out - and should have been out as soon as they could not tie him legally to the money.

He's not being imprisoned for committing a crime. He's being held in contempt of court until he complies with the court's order to disgorge the $2.5 million. The court doesn't believe his claim that the money is gone. Given that belief, as far as the court is concerned, Chadwick holds the keys to his own jail cell.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

He's not being imprisoned for committing a crime. He's being held in contempt of court until he complies with the court's order to disgorge the $2.5 million. The court doesn't believe his claim that the money is gone. Given that belief, as far as the court is concerned, Chadwick holds the keys to his own jail cell.

AS
And this is legal?! Keeping someone in jail for eleven years, not because he has been convicted by a jury, but because a judge finds him in continuous "contempt of court"??????

Are you *********** serious?

[AmateurScientist]

Can someone be held indefinitely in jail as long as they are judged to be "in contempt of court"?

Yes, if it's for civil contempt.

There are two broad kinds of contempt of court. One is criminal contempt, and the other is civil contempt.

Criminal contempt is punishment for violating an order of the court. The violation is complete, and the court punishes the contemptor for a specific period of time (commonly 5 or 10 days per violation). The contemptor need do nothing but serve his time in order to get out of jail.

In contrast, civil contempt is not punishment for something that has already occurred. It is used as leverage to compel the contemptor to comply with the court's order. In civil contempt, the contemptor merely has to comply with the court's order to get (or stay) out of jail. He holds the keys to his own cell.

In this case, apparently the contempt stems from Chadwick's failure to turn over the $2.5 million that the court ordered him to years ago during the divorce. Although Chadwick claims the money was lost in the European real estate investment, the court doesn't believe it. Apparently, the judge believes Chadwick has the money squirreled away in a foreign account somewhere.

Chadwick isn't being punished for something he's done. He's being held indefinitely until he comes forth and turns over the money or satisfactorily accounts for its being gone. The court simply doesn't buy his story. On the sketchy facts we're given in the story, I don't buy it either. It's far too convenient for him under the circumstances and completely at odds with his personality to have risked his fortune in a dicey scheme.

If the judge is right, I have no sympathy for the guy. He's too clever by half.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

And this is legal?! Keeping someone in jail for eleven years, not because he has been convicted by a jury, but because a judge finds him in continuous "contempt of court"??????

Are you *********** serious?

Although the story doesn't mention it, Chadwick has a remedy he can pursue. Assuming he has exhausted all legal appeals and remedies, he can petition another court for a writ of habeas corpus (an equitable remedy, not a legal one -- those are terms of art in the law, so don't worry about the distinction too much). It means "release the body" and is precisely for this kind of situation. It's an extraordinary remedy -- available only as a last resort. If he can convince another court of competent jurisdiction that the judge holding him in contempt of court is wrong and has no legal basis for doing so, then he can go free.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

Yes, if it's for civil contempt.

There are two broad kinds of contempt of court. One is criminal contempt, and the other is civil contempt.

Criminal contempt is punishment for violating an order of the court. The violation is complete, and the court punishes the contemptor for a specific period of time (commonly 5 or 10 days per violation). The contemptor need do nothing but serve his time in order to get out of jail.

In contrast, civil contempt is not punishment for something that has already occurred. It is used as leverage to compel the contemptor to comply with the court's order. In civil contempt, the contemptor merely has to comply with the court's order to get (or stay) out of jail. He holds the keys to his own cell.

In this case, apparently the contempt stems from Chadwick's failure to turn over the $2.5 million that the court ordered him to years ago during the divorce. Although Chadwick claims the money was lost in the European real estate investment, the court doesn't believe it. Apparently, the judge believes Chadwick has the money squirreled away in a foreign account somewhere.

Chadwick isn't being punished for something he's done. He's being held indefinitely until he comes forth and turns over the money or satisfactorily accounts for it's being gone. The court simply doesn't buy his story. On the sketchy facts we're given in the story, I don't buy it either. It's far too convenient for him under the circumstances and completely at odds with his personality to have risked his fortune in a dicey scheme.

If the judge is right, I have no sympathy for the guy. He's too clever by half.

AS
So, in effect an innocent man can be held indefinitely in jail, though he has been convicted of no crime.

I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.

[DanishDynamite]

Although the story doesn't mention it, Chadwick has a remedy he can pursue. Assuming he has exhausted all legal appeals and remedies, he can petition another court for a writ of habeas corpus (an equitable remedy, not a legal one -- those are terms of art in the law, so don't worry about the distinction too much). It means "release the body" and is precisely for this kind of situation. It's an extraordinary remedy -- available only as a last resort. If he can convince another court of competent jurisdiction that the judge holding him in contempt of court is wrong and has no legal basis for doing so, then he can go free.

AS
AS. I respect you, though you are a lawyer.

Please, as a person, do you feel that it is perfectly justifiable to keep this man in jail for 11 years?

[AmateurScientist]

So, in effect an innocent man can be held indefinitely in jail, though he has been convicted of no crime.



I repeat. He's not being held for having committed a crime. He's being held for willfully violating the court's orders. He is flouting the rule of law. He's trying to cheat the system by refusing to cough up the money that should rightfully be split in the divorce.

An aggravating factor is that the guy is a lawyer -- a very bright, meticulous one who wouldn't likely just "lose" $2.5 million as easily as he claims. His excuse is extremely fishy, and he knows better than to tweak the judge's nose as he's being doing for 11 years. The judge simply isn't letting him get away with it.


I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.

Horrible analogy.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

AS. I respect you, though you are a lawyer.

Please, as a person, do you feel that it is perfectly justifiable to keep this man in jail for 11 years?

According to the judge, all the guy has to do to get out is to cough up the money he has apparently been hiding all this time.

If the judge is wrong, then the guy just has to file a writ of habeas corpus and get another judge to let him out.

AS

[DanishDynamite]

I repeat. He's not being held for having committed a crime.
Yes, I know. He is just being held without cause. And has been so held for 11 years!!!![/quote]
He's being held for willfully violating the court's orders. He is flauting the rule of law. He's trying to cheat the system by refusing to cough up the money that should rightfully be split in the divorce.
He is being held in custody because the DA thinks he's guilty of something. And he's been held now for (unbelievably) 11 years!!!
An aggravating factor is that the guy is a lawyer -- a very bright, meticulous one who wouldn't likely just "lose" $2.5 million as easily as he claims. His excuse is extremely fishy, and he knows better than to tweak the judge's nose as he's being doing for 11 years. The judge simply isn't letting him get away with it.
Why on Earth would it matter if this guy was the Dean of MIT?
Horrible analogy.
Perfect analogy.

AS, I currently have no greater hate for your profession and no lower esteem for the US "system of justice" than might be possible.

[Ian Osborne]

Surely if he says he doesn't have the money, and the court says he does, the burden of proof should be on the court?

[DanishDynamite]

Surely if he says he doesn't have the money, and the court says he does, the burden of proof should be on the court?
Apparently this isn't the case in the great freedom country, known currently as the USA.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Does anyone else think this is insane?

"Insane" that he is in jail, or "insane" for what he is doing?

I would say "No", "Yes".

[The Central Scrutinizer]

On the sketchy facts we're given in the story, I don't buy it either. It's far too convenient for him under the circumstances and completely at odds with his personality to have risked his fortune in a dicey scheme.

And it is equally "convenient" that the amount he lost just happens to be his net worth. To the penny.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

So, in effect an innocent man can be held indefinitely in jail, though he has been convicted of no crime.

I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.

So I guess the Danish system is not a joke, since someone can defy a judge's order and face no consequences? No thanks, I'll take the "joke" system.

[DanishDynamite]

"Insane" that he is in jail, or "insane" for what he is doing?

I would say "No", "Yes".
I'm interested in why you answer "No" to the question as to whether you feel it is insane that that he has been in jail for 11 years so far on contempt of court.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

He is being held in custody because the DA thinks he's guilty of something.

Incorrect.

Are you purposefully trying to not understand this?

[DanishDynamite]

So I guess the Danish system is not a joke, since someone can defy a judge's order and face no consequences? No thanks, I'll take the "joke" system.
I surmise that you feel 11 years and counting is a good way teach this non-convicted man that the US system of Justice is just that.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm interested in why you answer "No" to the question as to whether you feel it is insane that that he has been in jail for 11 years so far on contempt of court.

What he has not done is comply with the courts, clearly in denmark they don't actualy do anything to you if you ignore court orders and such, but here there are penalties.

[Rob Lister]

I surmise that you feel 11 years and counting is a good way teach this non-convicted man that the US system of Justice is just that.

Yep.

[DanishDynamite]

Incorrect.

Are you purposefully trying to not understand this?
No.

Are you drunk?

[DanishDynamite]

Yep.
Must admit I thought you had a sense of honor. And even, perhaps, a sense of right and wrong.

Oh well.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I surmise that you feel 11 years and counting is a good way teach this non-convicted man that the US system of Justice is just that.

Yep.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

No.

Are you drunk?

No. Are you?

[DanishDynamite]

Yep.
OK.

[DanishDynamite]

No. Are you?
No.

[DanishDynamite]

What he has not done is comply with the courts, clearly in denmark they don't actualy do anything to you if you ignore court orders and such, but here there are penalties.
There are penalties here as well.

Penalties. Not indefinite custody.

[WildCat]

There are penalties here as well.

Penalties. Not indefinite custody.
It is not indefinite custody. All he has to do is account for the money and he's free to go. If he has it, turn it over. If he lost it through a bad business deal, show the documentation.

[DanishDynamite]

It is not indefinite custody. All he has to do is account for the money and he's free to go. If he has it, turn it over. If he lost it through a bad business deal, show the documentation.
I see. Apparently Guantanamo wasn't an aberation. Just business as usual.

[AmateurScientist]

Yes, I know. He is just being held without cause. And has been so held for 11 years!!!!

Not without cause. The reason he is being held is because he is in willful contempt of the court's order to turn over the money or account for it satisfactorily. As he has steadfastly refused to do so, he remains in contempt. He has complete control over the situation, but continues to refuse to cooperate and comply.


He is being held in custody because the DA thinks he's guilty of something. And he's been held now for (unbelievably) 11 years!!!


Wrong. There is no mention of the District Attorney because the DA isn't involved. The guy isn't accused of having committed a crime. Get that through your head.

No one is accusing the guy of committing a crime.

What the guy is in jail for is contempt of court. It isn't a crime. It's being willfully defiant of the court's inherent authority to enforce its own orders. That's a power and authority that not only US courts have, but one that is shared also by all judicial courts, including yours. Without that power, courts would be wasting everyone's time having trials and rendering decisions. It would be like a military with no ammunition.


Why on Earth would it matter if this guy was the Dean of MIT?


It's an aggravating factor because as a lawyer, an officer of the court, Chadwick knows better than anyone else that willfully defying the judge's order can subject him to contempt charges and jail until he complies. The judge was right to throw his ass in there until he complies. For the third time now, Chadwick holds the key to his own cell.



AS, I currently have no greater hate for your profession and no lower esteem for the US "system of justice" than might be possible.

Your railing against the US judicial system and the legal profession is just plain stupid in this context. The only wrongdoer here is Chadwick. And he's smirking about it.

And you're mad at me about it. Go figure.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Surely if he says he doesn't have the money, and the court says he does, the burden of proof should be on the court?

No. The guy had contol over the bulk of the marital assets. That places upon him a fiduciary duty to avoid self-dealing and to provide an accounting to the other beneficiary of the money over which he had control -- his wife. The guy has apparently failed miserably to account for the money to the wife's lawyers' and to the court's satisfaction, which is realy no surprise given his ridiculous explanation for what happened to it. In short, Chadwick is lying his ass off and trying to get away with hiding the money from the court and his wife. The court's calling BS on him and making him pay the consequence of his continuing noncompliance.

It's not the court's responsibility to account for the money. Because Chadwick has a fiduciary duty to his wife with respect to it, it is his duty to account for it. He has failed in that duty, and not negligently, but willfully and repeatedly. For continuing to willfully disobey the court's order to produce the money or account for it, he remains in jail. He should rot there until he sees the error of his ways and relents. If he gets out without complying or accounting for the money in a plausible, satisfactory manner, that means the rule of law means little.

Judges' orders have to have teeth in them. Chadwick knows that, but he remains a defiant little prick. Remember his term -- "scorched earth." Hey Chadwick! You reap what you sow, a**hole. I think that probably accurately sums up how the judge must feel.

AS

[WildCat]

Judges' orders have to have teeth in them. Chadwick knows that, but he remains a defiant little prick. Remember his term -- "scorched earth." Hey Chadwick! You reap what you sow, a**hole. I think that probably accurately sums up how the judge must feel.

AS
Exactly. Some guys will burn their house down (after cancelling the fire insurance) just so the wife can't have it after a divorce. Some will kill their own children rather than let the ex-wife gain custody.

Chadwick would rather sit in jail than let his ex have her share of the marital assets. And so he will.

[Rob Lister]

Exactly. Some guys will burn their house down (after cancelling the fire insurance) just so the wife can't have it after a divorce. Some will kill their own children rather than let the ex-wife gain custody.


Be fair: women often do the exact same. More often, no doubt.

[WildCat]

Be fair: women often do the exact same. More often, no doubt.
I don't know if they do it more often, but divorce tends to bring out the worst in people.

[Beerina]

I see. Apparently Guantanamo wasn't an aberation. Just business as usual.

Are you saying he should only have to spend a few weeks in jail, then he can get out and go recover it all?

Although I do have a problem with him having been kept in 2 years longer, so far, than someone who had stolen $2 million would have been.

[AmateurScientist]

... but divorce tends to bring out the worst in people.

Truer words were never spoken.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Although I do have a problem with him having been kept in 2 years longer, so far, than someone who had stolen $2 million would have been.

Chadwick could have gotten out anytime. He still can. He remains in jail because he chooses to remain. No sympathy from me.

He has had 44 opportunities to convince other courts of the injustice of his being held in jail, including two chances before the US Supreme Court. He has failed to convince them he's a victim. Cry me a f***ing river, a**hole (Chadwick, not you Beerina).

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Be fair: women often do the exact same. More often, no doubt.

Not so. Despite women's equal rights and all, men control marital assets far more often than women do. That's true even for younger couples, if my clients are the least bit representative of couples in the US.

AS

[Just thinking]

I don't know if they do it more often, but divorce tends to bring out the worst in people.

Exactly ... why is it so hard to see this as a "... if I can't have it, no one will; especially her." ?

[RandFan]

I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.? I really don't get this. In a nation of nearly 300 million people, 50 states and many, many jurisdictions you judge us on a couple of cases? It's hard to find such an abandonment of critical thinking anywhere but the politics section.

[RandFan]

I see. Apparently Guantanamo wasn't an aberation. Just business as usual.Translation: Anything that does not conform to your world view is wrong. Thanks.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I thought the US system of Justice was a joke when Guantanamo came around. Apparently it's been a joke since it began.

How about "since before it began"?

"Contempt of Court" is a principle in the British Common Law and part of the laws of most British Commonwealth countries. The penalties vary by jurisdiction but always provide a way for the order to be lifted.

What happens in Denmark if a person before the court refuses to obey an order from a Judge?

IAMAL

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Maybe he's telling the truth and he's being kept in Jail for nothing?


The legal system should be changed so the court has to PROVE he has stashed the money away somewhere and not just on the whim of one single judge.

That's not justice, That's B.S.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Translation: Anything that does not conform to your world view is wrong. Thanks.


Do you really believe that argument or are you just playing the devils advocate?

[clarsct]

Burden of proof argument has already been discharged, do pay attention.

Aside from which, our Government has no rights to subpoena the records of a foreign bank, that is to say, no way to obtain proof other than by asking nicely. You'll find that asking most any banker nicely for someone's financial records will get you a laugh at best.

Chadwick, however, has all the records in his possession. He merely has to disclose them. In essence, Chadwick claims the money is gone. Judge says 'prove it'. Chadwick says 'no'. Chadwick is thrown in jail for contempt of court.

Chadwick has the burden of proof. The court has the power to enforce its own edicts. Chadwick can get out of prison any day he wishes.

Any of this unclear?

[AmateurScientist]

Maybe he's telling the truth and he's being kept in Jail for nothing?


The legal system should be changed so the court has to PROVE he has stashed the money away somewhere and not just on the whim of one single judge.

That's not justice, That's B.S.

You don't get it. The guy had the money right before the divorce began. Divorce begins and it suddenly disappears in an extremely risky real estate deal that his even being involved in runs contrary to everything he stood for and lived up to that point. The guy was a control freak.

Judge says, "Cough it up or account for the money." The guy offers an absurd explanation. Judge determines he's lying and cheating. Judge puts him in jail for refusing to comply with judge's order. The judge has the authority and inherent power to do that.

The judge doesn't have to prove anything. The guy admittedly had the money right before the divorce began. All he has to do is produce it or satisfy the court where it went (or much more likely, where it is). Try looking up "fiduciary duty," Dustin, and try to get your head around that idea. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.

AS

[RandFan]

Do you really believe that argument or are you just playing the devils advocate?? Justice isn't axiomatic or intrinsic to anything. Morals, ethics, concepts of right and wrong are not absolute. Hell no I'm not simply playing the devils advocate.

It's perfectly ok to question another nations laws. It's perfectly ok to disagree with that system of laws. It's rather arrogant to dismiss an entire legal system as a joke. The American judicial system has a long and storied history. Sure we have had many difficult times but our system of justice has weathered quite well. Such proclamations as DD's are simply shallow cherry picking of data. It's conformation bias so as to come to a negative conclusion as to the integrity of our legal system. There is no objectivity, no honest appraisal of the entire system just a wholesale denouncement. This is typical of those who are bigoted against a group of people and want to prove their skewed view. I would accuse DD of ignorance but I know that he knows better which just makes him intellectually dishonest.

ETA: I had honestly thought that DD was an intellectually honest person so this is rather disappointing. Perhaps I'm just confusing him with someone else because his efforts of late most certainly don't demonstrate any such trait.

That I fundamentaly disagree with Sharia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia) or other Muslim laws doesn't mean that I vew those legal systems as jokes. That I disagree with any other nation's laws doesn't render their system of justice a joke to me.

Bullying and attacking other views of thought are poor form and serve to purpose but to molify one's ego. Logical argument is much better but sadly logical argument isn't always as satisfying to some. And of course some people see the world in a black and white fashion. There are no shades of gray, no valid or reasonable contrasting points of view. Such is the world of DD.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You don't get it. The guy had the money right before the divorce began. Divorce begins and it suddenly disappears in an extremely risky real estate deal that his even being involved in runs contrary to everything he stood for and lived up to that point. The guy was a control freak.

Judge says, "Cough it up or account for the money." The guy offers an absurd explanation. Judge determines he's lying and cheating. Judge puts him in jail for refusing to comply with judge's order. The judge has the authority and inherent power to do that.

The judge doesn't have to prove anything. The guy admittedly had the money right before the divorce began. All he has to do is produce it or satisfy the court where it went (or much more likely, where it is). Try looking up "fiduciary duty," Dustin, and try to get your head around that idea. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.

AS



Your response makes no sense. If Clarsct is telling the truth the it makes sense and I agree with the judge. But if Clarsct is incorrect and the man has no way of actually proving he lost the money for whatever reason or has already tried to prove he lost the money but the judge denied it then I disagree with the judge.

[AmateurScientist]

Aside from which, our Government has no rights to subpoena the records of a foreign bank, that is to say, no way to obtain proof other than by asking nicely. You'll find that asking most any banker nicely for someone's financial records will get you a laugh at best.

Actually, it does, but that's beside the point here (for instance, the IRS often has to subpoena foreign bank records through the U.S. District Courts, who then coordinate with the local courts in the foreign jurisdictions for the issuance of local subpoenas in tax fraud cases -- I have first hand knowledge of this as I defended a complicated tax fraud case involving foreign accounts in the UK and in Hong Kong a few years ago).

You are right about the burden of proof in this case.

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

? Justice isn't axiomatic or intrinsic to anything. Morals, ethics, concepts of right and wrong are not absolute. Hell no I'm not simply playing the devils advocate.

It's perfectly ok to question another nations laws. It's perfectly ok to disagree with that system of laws. It's rather arrogant to dismiss an entire legal system as a joke. The American judicial system has a long and storied history. Sure we have had many difficult times but our system of justice has weathered quite well. Such proclamations as DD's are simply shallow cherry picking of data. It's conformation bias so as to come to a negative conclusion as to the integrity of our legal system. There is no objectivity, no honest appraisal of the entire system just a wholesale denouncement. This is typical of those who are bigoted against a group of people and want to prove their skewed view. I would accuse DD of ignorance but I know that he knows better which just makes him intellectually dishonest.


If morals and ethics aren't absolute then could I murder you without cause and still be perfectly moral and ethical?:rolleyes:


Moreover,
I don't believe the entire American legal system is a Joke. I do however believe it contains many problems and cases where injustice is rampant. Gitmo is one of them.

[clarsct]

Hrm.

I thought we had to go through their nation's laws to do it..some will let us, and some wouldn't. We have no legal jurisdiction in a foreign country.

I thought it had more to do with which country and the status of our diplomatic relations and cooperation.

I could be very wrong, but I think I got the rest correct.

I am not a lawyer, just a guy who tries to pay attention.....;)

[AmateurScientist]

Your response makes no sense.

Read it again if you have to.

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Actually, it does, but that's beside the point here (for instance, the IRS often has to subpoena foreign bank records through the U.S. District Courts, who then coordinate with the local courts in the foreign jurisdictions for the issuance of local subpoenas in tax fraud cases -- I have first hand knowledge of this as I defended a complicated tax fraud case involving foreign accounts in the UK and in Hong Kong a few years ago).

You are right about the burden of proof in this case.

AS



If the court can subpoena the bank records of this man even if they are in another country then why is the burden of proof put on him to prove he's innocent and telling the truth?

In criminal cases if someone is accused of killing someone else then the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation not the one being accused.

This is how it works in logic as well. The burden of proof is(should be) on the one making the initial claim(the judge).

[clarsct]

If morals and ethics aren't absolute then could I murder you without cause and still be perfectly moral and ethical?:rolleyes:


Moreover,
I don't believe the entire American legal system is a Joke. I do however believe it contains many problems and cases where injustice is rampant. Gitmo is one of them.
The question about Gitmo is whether or not it is within our justice system at all.

Originally, I don't think it was intended to be, until SCOTUS decided it was. I think things have improved since then.

We have a ways to go, different issue, though. Perhaps a different thread.

The two situations aren't congruent.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What happens in Denmark if a person before the court refuses to obey an order from a Judge?


The judge says mean things to them. Then they are free to leave.

[clarsct]

If the court can subpoena the bank records of this man even if they are in another country then why is the burden of proof put on him to prove he's innocent and telling the truth?

In criminal cases if someone is accused of killing someone else then the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation not the one being accused.

This is how it works in logic as well. The burden of proof is(should be) on the one making the initial claim(the judge).


Once more, the JUDGE didn't make a claim.

CHADWICK says the money is gone, but refuses to provide evidence of it.

Are we clear?

[RandFan]

If morals and ethics aren't absolute then could I murder you without cause and still be perfectly moral and ethical?:rolleyes: To you, yes. Fortunately I live in a society that disagrees.

I don't believe the entire American legal system is a Joke.Then you are taking the wrong person to task. I recommend that you have a discussion with DD and not me.

I do however believe it contains many problems and cases where injustice is rampant. Gitmo is one of them. That is arguable but it IS a reasonable position. I can respect that point of view. Sadly DD doesn't share it. His is an unreasonable one where the US justice system is only a joke.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You don't get it. The guy had the money right before the divorce began. Divorce begins and it suddenly disappears in an extremely risky real estate deal that his even being involved in runs contrary to everything he stood for and lived up to that point. The guy was a control freak.


You're assuming just because it is unbelievable that it didn't occur. This isn't evidence of anykind and it's a fallacy.
You're calling names.
Judge says, "Cough it up or account for the money." The guy offers an absurd explanation. Judge determines he's lying and cheating. Judge puts him in jail for refusing to comply with judge's order. The judge has the authority and inherent power to do that.


Absurd explanation in your opinion. Maybe he was telling the truth? Where is the proof he wasn't? Oh wait...You don't need any!:rolleyes:
Just because the judge has the 'authority' that doesn't make it right.
The judge doesn't have to prove anything. The guy admittedly had the money right before the divorce began.

So?

All he has to do is produce it or satisfy the court where it went (or much more likely, where it is).

Maybe he doesn't have it.

Try looking up "fiduciary duty," Dustin, and try to get your head around that idea. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.

Look up "burden of proof" as it relates to logic not law. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.;)

[AmateurScientist]

Hrm.

I thought we had to go through their nation's laws to do it..some will let us, and some wouldn't. We have no legal jurisdiction in a foreign country.

I thought it had more to do with which country and the status of our diplomatic relations and cooperation.



There are international treaties to which many countries are signatories which provide for the cooperation between courts of different nations and the cumpulsory process for the production of records held in another country.

Basically, there is a process for friendly nations to cooperate in recognizing the validity of each others' subpoenas. We have such an agreement with the UK and with Hong Kong.

Getting foreign bank records from within a friendly nation is a formal process, but it is rather ministerial in nature.

AS

[RandFan]

Read it again if you have to.

AS "A man hears what he want's to hear and disgregards the rest" --Paul Simon.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Once more, the JUDGE didn't make a claim.

CHADWICK says the money is gone, but refuses to provide evidence of it.

Are we clear?



The judge claimed Chadwick is lying.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"A man hears what he want's to hear and disgregards the rest" --Paul Simon.


I didn't hear anything...






I read it.:rolleyes:

[RandFan]

I didn't hear anything...

I read it.:rolleyes: Funny thing about metaphors, they are lost on...



Never mind.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Maybe he doesn't have it.

Then he has to show where it went. A week ago, I had $X in my checking account. Now I have $X-$3000 in my account. If a judge ordered me to show where the $3000 went, I could do that. It went somewhere. It didn't just disappear.

Look up "burden of proof" as it relates to logic not law. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.;)

We are not talking about "logic". We are talking about "law". Whether the two are related or not is open to debate. But either way, it is not relevant to this case.

[AmateurScientist]

You're assuming just because it is unbelievable that it didn't occur. This isn't evidence of anykind and it's a fallacy.
You're calling names.



Absurd explanation in your opinion. Maybe he was telling the truth? Where is the proof he wasn't? Oh wait...You don't need any!:rolleyes:
Just because the judge has the 'authority' that doesn't make it right.


So?



Maybe he doesn't have it.



Look up "burden of proof" as it relates to logic not law. Try not to pull any muscles in your head while doing so.;)

Dustin,

You'll understand life better and perhaps be a little less arrogant when you have some life experience from which to draw. Until then, you would do well to heed the advice of Confucius. It is better to say nothing and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

AS

[RandFan]

The judge claimed Chadwick is lying. Actually no, he FOUND that he was lying. If you have an opportunity I recommend a course in General Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. There is actually a concept in the law where by a judge can find something as fact. That IS what a judge is for in these specific instances. Usually it is a jury but Judges also can find facts. Please see Trier of Fact.

Of course I lack any real authority so I will graciously accept any corrections made by AS.

[JamesDillon]

I have little to add except that I agree with everything AmateurScientist has said (both as to civil contempt and as to Confucius). There's no problem with the legal system in this case; it appears to be a particularly determined a#%hole attempting to deceive the court and defraud his ex-wife, and the court calling him on it. Good for the court. As AS has pointed out, this man could have walked out of his cell any day in the last 11 years simply by complying with the judge's order to show where the money went. The consequences of his failure to do so entitle him to no sympathy whatsoever.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Then he has to show where it went. A week ago, I had $X in my checking account. Now I have $X-$3000 in my account. If a judge ordered me to show where the $3000 went, I could do that. It went somewhere. It didn't just disappear.


I already conceded that if the man failed to even try to prove that he is telling the truth then the judge is justified. But if the man DID provide proof that he lost the money and that the judge simply dismissed it because he didn't believe it then he isn't justified.

Also the man might of lost his financial records somehow.


We are not talking about "logic". We are talking about "law". Whether the two are related or not is open to debate. But either way, it is not relevant to this case.


I'm not arguing that it's 'illegal' I’m arguing that it's unjust and illogical if it's occuring the way I mentioned above where the man has proven or somehow can't prove that he lost the money and the judge won't accept his proof even though it's all he has.

[AmateurScientist]

The judge claimed Chadwick is lying.

No, the judge listened to the evidence presented at trial and as the trier of fact weighed the evidence, observed Chadwick's demeanor, and decided the man was lying. Guess what? That's called judging. That's why judges wear black robes and get to sit on those high benches and issue orders that are binding on litigants like Chadwick.

Chadwick won't acknowledge that. Hence, he's a jailbird and the judge is not. The system works.

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin,

You'll understand life better and perhaps be a little less arrogant when you have some life experience from which to draw. Until then, you would do well to heed the advice of Confucius. It is better to say nothing and let others think you a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

AS


AS-Your honor, Dustin is arrogant and doesn't know what he's talking about becuase he has no life experience. Therefor I rest my case!


Judge- Haha!

[AmateurScientist]

Actually no, he FOUND that he was lying. If you have an opportunity I recommend a course in General Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. There is actually a concept in the law where by a judge can find something as fact. That IS what a judge is for in these specific instances. Usually it is a jury but Judges also can find facts. Please see Trier of Fact.

Of course I lack any real authority so I will graciously accept any corrections made by AS.

Actually, you said it quite well. I was writing essentially the same thing as you were posting. Good job.

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Actually no, he FOUND that he was lying. If you have an opportunity I recommend a course in General Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law. There is actually a concept in the law where by a judge can find something as fact. That IS what a judge is for in these specific instances. Usually it is a jury but Judges also can find facts. Please see Trier of Fact.

Of course I lack any real authority so I will graciously accept any corrections made by AS.


If the judge "found it as a fact" then he shouldn't have a problem proving it as so.

Saying "I found this to be true and therefor it's true" isn't an argument.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have little to add except that I agree with everything AmateurScientist has said (both as to civil contempt and as to Confucius). There's no problem with the legal system in this case; it appears to be a particularly determined a#%hole attempting to deceive the court and defraud his ex-wife, and the court calling him on it. Good for the court. As AS has pointed out, this man could have walked out of his cell any day in the last 11 years simply by complying with the judge's order to show where the money went. The consequences of his failure to do so entitle him to no sympathy whatsoever.


This is all assuming that the man..

Has the proof.
Refused to provide it.

[JamesDillon]

I already conceded that if the man failed to even try to prove that he is telling the truth then the judge is justified. But if the man DID provide proof that he lost the money and that the judge simply dismissed it because he didn't believe it then he isn't justified.
As AmateurScientist has pointed out, that's the judge's prerogative-- making findings of fact based on determinations of credibility is precisely what a judge does.

Also the man might of lost his financial records somehow.
Yes, he might have lost his financial records. Funny thing, though-- usually banks and financial institutions keep backup copies of such records for just such occasions. In any case, whatever might have happened is less relevant than what the judge, in his official capacity, believes did happen. Once again, judges have the authority to judge, that is, to determine on the basis of the evidence presented what the true facts are. The judge in this case quite plausibly believes that Chadwick is not being entirely forthcoming as to the location of the money.

I'm not arguing that it's 'illegal' I’m arguing that it's unjust and illogical if it's occuring the way I mentioned above where the man has proven or somehow can't prove that he lost the money and the judge won't accept his proof even though it's all he has.
Once again, the judge has determined on the basis of the evidence presented that Mr. Chadwick's story is not plausible. It could be that the judge's assessment is incorrect-- judges are human beings and have been known to make mistakes from time to time. That's largely why we have the system of appellate review, which in this case I believe has upheld Mr. Chadwick's detention. The fact that circumstances could be such that Mr. Chadwick's confinement is unjust isn't really very persuasive, since that's true of literally every case in which a judge imposes any sort of criminal or civil punishment. Given the facts of this case as presented, it seems to me that the judge's determination is well-supported by the evidence.

[JamesDillon]

If the judge "found it as a fact" then he shouldn't have a problem proving it as so.

Saying "I found this to be true and therefor it's true" isn't an argument.

In that law, that's exactly how it works. Judicial findings of fact, for all legal purposes, are the facts-- any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is all assuming that the man..

Has the proof.
Refused to provide it.
Yes, which the judge has found to be the case. I take it you now concede the justice of Mr. Chadwick's detention?

[AmateurScientist]

AS-Your honor, Dustin is arrogant and doesn't know what he's talking about becuase he has no life experience. Therefor I rest my case!


Judge- Haha!

Not surprisingly, you missed the larger point. You're trying to correct me on a legal matter. You're 18, have no college degree, and no law license or legal experience.

In contrast, I'm 43, I have a college degree, a law degree, a license to practice in two states and in federal court, and have 18 years of experience of practicing law in court. Who do you think is better situated to analyze the case as it has been reported to us in the link better: you or me?

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

AS

[RandFan]

Actually, you said it quite well. I was writing essentially the same thing as you were posting. Good job.

ASThanks, it has been over 20 years but my professor was outstanding. I loved the class. That and poly-sci. Good times. :)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This is all assuming that the man..

Has the proof.
Refused to provide it.

The judge found 1 & 2 to be true. Therefore, it is true.

[RandFan]

If the judge "found it as a fact" then he shouldn't have a problem proving it as so.

Saying "I found this to be true and therefor it's true" isn't an argument.You are just demonstrating your naiveté, and I say that generously. The judge didn't make this ruling in a vacuum. He weighed the evidence that he (she?) had. Now, the nature of that evidence has been explained to you in general terms. That you don't like it or think the judge was wrong does not invalidate the judges ruling. Thank Ed for that.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

As AmateurScientist has pointed out, that's the judge's prerogative-- making findings of fact based on determinations of credibility is precisely what a judge does.


Ah, So the freedom of a man is based on what the judge finds to be credible or not?

That seems fair!:rolleyes:

Yes, he might have lost his financial records. Funny thing, though-- usually banks and financial institutions keep backup copies of such records for just such occasions. In any case, whatever might have happened is less relevant than what the judge, in his official capacity, believes did happen. Once again, judges have the authority to judge, that is, to determine on the basis of the evidence presented what the true facts are. The judge in this case quite plausibly believes that Chadwick is not being entirely forthcoming as to the location of the money.

I'm not arguing that the judge doesn't have legal ability to do what he did. I'm arguing that the judge should not have legal ability to do what he did assuming it happened the way I mentioned above. The freedom of someone can't rest on the opinions of 1 person who can't even prove what they believe.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

In that law, that's exactly how it works. Judicial findings of fact, for all legal purposes, are the facts-- any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is similar to people (usually talk radio left/right wing nuts) reading about a Supreme Court decision and saying "the Supreme Court is wrong". No, the Supreme Court is never wrong. A person may disagree with their opinion, but legaly, their opinion is correct. Unless and until it is revisited by a later version of the Supreme Court.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

The judge found 1 & 2 to be true. Therefore, it is true.


Is that how proof works? What someone "finds" to be true is true regardless of whether he can prove it to be true? Isn't that called an authoritarian rule?

If science worked like that we'd be up a river without a paddle!

[WildCat]

Ah, So the freedom of a man is based on what the judge finds to be credible or not?

That seems fair!:rolleyes:
I can't believe you actually wrote that...

[RandFan]

Ah, So the freedom of a man is based on what the judge finds to be credible or not?Ahhhh.... yeah! Welcome to the real world. Of course, as has been told you many times the man is not without remedies in the case of a miscarriage of justice. You just don't want to acknowledge these remedies because they are inconvenient for you.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In that law, that's exactly how it works. Judicial findings of fact, for all legal purposes, are the facts-- any evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.


Yes, which the judge has found to be the case. I take it you now concede the justice of Mr. Chadwick's detention?


Can what the judge "found to be the case" be proven?

If not then it shouldn't be relevant.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Not surprisingly, you missed the larger point. You're trying to correct me on a legal matter. You're 18, have no college degree, and no law license or legal experience.

In contrast, I'm 43, I have a college degree, a law degree, a license to practice in two states and in federal court, and have 18 years of experience of practicing law in court. Who do you think is better situated to analyze the case as it has been reported to us in the link better: you or me?

I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count.

AS


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html


Have fun.;)

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I can't believe you actually wrote that...



Is it so surprising that I haven't be conditioned to accept injustice?

[RandFan]

Is that how proof works? What someone "finds" to be true is true regardless of whether he can prove it to be true? Isn't that called an authoritarian rule?

If science worked like that we'd be up a river without a paddle! You are now being willfully ignorant.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Ahhhh.... yeah! Welcome to the real world. Of course, as has been told you many times the man is not without remedies in the case of a miscarriage of justice. You just don't want to acknowledge these remedies because they are inconvenient for you.


Who said I don't want to acknowledge them? Who said they're inconvenient to me?

Do you even know what I’m arguing here? I don't believe you do.

[JamesDillon]

Ah, So the freedom of a man is based on what the judge finds to be credible or not?

That seems fair!:rolleyes:
Yes, Dustin, that is exactly what the freedom of this man and every criminal defendant* is ultimately based on. It may not seem fair to you, but that's how the system has worked for many centuries, and, unless you can offer a better one (which I very much doubt), I predict that the same system will be in place for quite a long time to come.

I'm not arguing that the judge doesn't have legal ability to do what he did. I'm arguing that the judge should not have legal ability to do what he did assuming it happened the way I mentioned above. The freedom of someone can't rest on the opinions of 1 person who can't even prove what they believe.
The highlighted portion appears to be where you're missing out on this. How do you propose that we determine whether or not the situation is the one you described above? The law's answer to that vexing question is that we have a neutral arbiter-- a judge or jury-- hear the evidence and make a determination as to what actually happened. That determination is then the official, legal version. We hope that most of the time, the judge or jury will find the facts correctly-- i.e., that the findings of fact will reflect what actually happened. But the "real" truth is epistemically inaccessible to us-- trials are almost always a matter of various witnesses presenting conflicting accounts of what "actually" happened. The responsiblity falls to the fact-finder to pore over all this testimony and come up with a single consistent narrative, which is then adopted as the actual version of events despite the fact that it is really only the court's best guess at the truth.

*Technically, many criminal defendants' freedom is determined more directly by a jury's interpretation of the facts, but even then a judge generally has the authority to overrule a jury verdict if he or she finds it to be clearly inconsistent with the facts, though judges rarely exercise that authority.

[RandFan]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html


Have fun.;) Sorry, it fails. AS is appealing to authority and not attacking your character. And in this case, his is a very good appeal.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You are now being willfully ignorant.



And you're acting like a child by resorting to name calling because I disagree with you.

[RandFan]

Who said I don't want to acknowledge them? Who said they're inconvenient to me?

Do you even know what I’m arguing here? I don't believe you do. You haven't even acknowledged them. Yes I do know what you are arguing here and you haven't a leg to stand on.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

This is similar to people (usually talk radio left/right wing nuts) reading about a Supreme Court decision and saying "the Supreme Court is wrong". No, the Supreme Court is never wrong. A person may disagree with their opinion, but legaly, their opinion is correct. Unless and until it is revisited by a later version of the Supreme Court.



What Hitler was doing to the Jews and what Stalin did to his own people was technically legal in their country so by your definition it wasn't "wrong"?



Nice....

[JamesDillon]

This is similar to people (usually talk radio left/right wing nuts) reading about a Supreme Court decision and saying "the Supreme Court is wrong". No, the Supreme Court is never wrong. A person may disagree with their opinion, but legaly, their opinion is correct. Unless and until it is revisited by a later version of the Supreme Court.

That's true, but it does depend on what you mean by "wrong." It is possible to judge a Supreme Court (or any other court's) opinion on the basis of some kind of extralegal norm-- morality or economic policy or whatever-- and find it lacking. One could even argue that a Court opinion simply applies or arrives at the wrong legal standard. But you're right that a Supreme Court opinion is never, technically, legally wrong, because the Court is the highest arbiter of what the law is. Too many people fail to recognize that fact.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yes, Dustin, that is exactly what the freedom of this man and every criminal defendant* is ultimately based on. It may not seem fair to you, but that's how the system has worked for many centuries, and, unless you can offer a better one (which I very much doubt), I predict that the same system will be in place for quite a long time to come.


Sure. The judge must prove that what he concluded is indeed true. Seems fair to me.


The highlighted portion appears to be where you're missing out on this. How do you propose that we determine whether or not the situation is the one you described above? The law's answer to that vexing question is that we have a neutral arbiter-- a judge or jury-- hear the evidence and make a determination as to what actually happened. That determination is then the official, legal version. We hope that most of the time, the judge or jury will find the facts correctly-- i.e., that the findings of fact will reflect what actually happened. But the "real" truth is epistemically inaccessible to us-- trials are almost always a matter of various witnesses presenting conflicting accounts of what "actually" happened. The responsiblity falls to the fact-finder to pore over all this testimony and come up with a single consistent narrative, which is then adopted as the actual version of events despite the fact that it is really only the court's best guess at the truth.

*Technically, many criminal defendants' freedom is determined more directly by a jury's interpretation of the facts, but even then a judge generally has the authority to overrule a jury verdict if he or she finds it to be clearly inconsistent with the facts, though judges rarely exercise that authority.


This is what i've got a problem with also.

[RandFan]

And you're acting like a child by resorting to name calling because I disagree with you.Sorry, no. Simple concepts have been explained to you and you respond as if you didn't hear them or that you don't understand them. In which case you are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the concepts or you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. Your arguments do not carry the day and do not counter hundreds of years of legal philosophy and precedent. Many gifted minds have grappled with these issues. You are not the first to have questioned them. However these are settled matters of legal philosophy. That you fail to acknowledge them is demonstrable of your unwillingness to grasp them.

[JamesDillon]

What Hitler was doing to the Jews and what Stalin did to his own people was technically legal in their country so by your definition it wasn't "wrong"?



Nice....

Whatever happened to that Godwin smiley with the little Hitler mustache that I saw in another thread a while ago? We should really make that a standard item.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sorry, it fails. AS is appealing to authority and not attacking your character. And in this case, his is a very good appeal.




Bzzt..Wrong!


Attacking my age (Even though he got it wrong) and my education is an ad hominem.

[AmateurScientist]

This is similar to people (usually talk radio left/right wing nuts) reading about a Supreme Court decision and saying "the Supreme Court is wrong". No, the Supreme Court is never wrong. A person may disagree with their opinion, but legaly, their opinion is correct. Unless and until it is revisited by a later version of the Supreme Court.

I won't take issue with that, except that I see nothing wrong with criticising certain Supreme Court decisions as having been wrongly decided. Lawyers and legal scholars do that all the time.

Nevertheless, I agree with you completely about the right wing and left wing nuts who rail against the Supreme Court as if it's a bunch of crooks and outlaws. Indeed, Vincent Bugliosi from the left called the justices "criminals" for "stealing" the 2000 Presidential election from Al Gore, and former Alabama Governor Fob James went on national television and called the same justices "outlaws" for not upholding then-Judge Roy Moore's supposed "right" to keep his Ten Commandments hand-carved plaque in his Circuit Court courtroom in Gadsden, Alabama.

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Sorry, no. Simple concepts have been explained to you and you respond as if you didn't hear them or that you don't understand them. In which case you are not sophisticated enough to comprehend the concepts or you are sticking your fingers in your ears and humming. Your arguments do not carry the day and do not counter hundreds of years of legal philosophy and precedent. Many gifted minds have grappled with these issues. You are not the first to have questioned them. However these are settled matters of legal philosophy. That you fail to acknowledge them is demonstrable of your unwillingness to grasp them.



So many fallacies in this one paragraph that I don't even have time to point them out...

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Whatever happened to that Godwin smiley with the little Hitler mustache that I saw in another thread a while ago? We should really make that a standard item.



It's a perfectly valid comparison. He's arguing that WHATEVER the Supreme court decides is by definition "right" so it can never be wrong even if what it's doing is completely morally and ethically wrong. This is the kind of thinking that brought Hitler to power. Belief that the authority is right by definition because it's the 'authority'.

[RandFan]

What Hitler was doing to the Jews and what Stalin did to his own people was technically legal in their country so by your definition it wasn't "wrong"?

Nice....Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance. What Hitler and Stalin did was NOT based on legal philosophy or precedent. What they did was subvert the laws of their nations based on fiat. The judge in this case did not act based on fiat. You would do well to heed the advice of AS.

[JamesDillon]

Sure. The judge must prove that what he concluded is indeed true. Seems fair to me.
Prove to whom? The only authority higher than the judge himself is the appellate court, which seems satisfied that his opinion is correct.

If it hasn't been explained to you before, the judge doesn't actually need to justify his opinions to you, although I suspect that there probably is either a written or oral opinion issued on this matter that you have most likely not bothered to read before asserting that the judge's conclusion is undefended.



This is what i've got a problem with also.

I'm not surprised.


Anyway, Dustin, I would really love to stay up all night watching you make an ignorant ass of yourself all over again, because really, the college thread was the best entertainment I've had in a while. Unfortunately, I must get to bed because I have to go to work tomorrow morning. For a federal district court judge. Who might very well be sentencing someone to jail because, in the legitimate exercise of his legal authority, he finds their version of certain events to be implausible or incredible.* Thankfully for all involved, he has a much greater grasp of the legal issues involved and the gravity of his station than you appear to. I'll look forward to reading the next 10 pages of your repetitious mischaracterizations and willful miscomprehension in the morning, though.

*Actually I don't think we have any criminal hearings tomorrow, but I'm sure we'll have something coming up within the next few days.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Again, you are demonstrating your ignorance. What Hitler and Stalin did was NOT based on legal philosophy or precedent. What they did was subvert the laws of their nations based on fiat. The judge in this case did not act based on fiat. You would do well to heed the advice of AS.


Hitler and Stalin made themselves dictators with absolute power so they themselves made the laws. So by definition they weren't breaking any laws that they themselves abolished.


AS's advice makes no sense as I’ve pointed out. He resorts to name calling and logical fallacies to try to make a point. He's no lawyer I’d hire.

[RandFan]

It's a perfectly valid comparison. He's arguing that WHATEVER the Supreme court decides is by definition "right" so it can never be wrong even if what it's doing is completely morally and ethically wrong. This is the kind of thinking that brought Hitler to power. Belief that the authority is right by definition because it's the 'authority'.NO, NO, NO!

The Supreme Court makes decisions based on legal philosophy, precedent and The Constitution of The United States as guide. You are demonstrably wrong in every possible way and you know nothing of the history of jurisprudence in the United States and the systems of law that preceded our justice system and were a frame work for our system like the English Common law and others.

[WildCat]

Is it so surprising that I haven't be conditioned to accept injustice?
No, what is surprising is your belief that a duly seated judge shouldn't be allowed to judge.

[RandFan]

Hitler and Stalin made themselves dictators with absolute power so they themselves made the laws. So by definition they weren't breaking any laws that they themselves abolished. They subverted precedent. It is clear that you simply don't understand the importance of precedent and the foundations of law. I can accept your argument but you CAN'T then compare those systems of law to ours because ours did not simply abolish laws but where instead built on previous laws and precedent and using the constitution.

AS's advice makes no sense as I’ve pointed out. He resorts to name calling and logical fallacies to try to make a point. No.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Prove to whom? The only authority higher than the judge himself is the appellate court, which seems satisfied that his opinion is correct.

If it hasn't been explained to you before, the judge doesn't actually need to justify his opinions to you, although I suspect that there probably is either a written or oral opinion issued on this matter that you have most likely not bothered to read before asserting that the judge's conclusion is undefended.


I never made any claims about this specific case other than that the judge must prove what he finds to be true.

Prove to whom? How about a jury? What's the point of a jury if 1 man can ignore their decision? Sort of defeats the purpose.




I'm not surprised.


Anyway, Dustin, I would really love to stay up all night watching you make an ignorant ass of yourself all over again, because really, the college thread was the best entertainment I've had in a while. Unfortunately, I must get to bed because I have to go to work tomorrow morning. For a judge. Who might very well be sentencing someone to jail because, in his discretion, he finds their version of certain events to be implausible or incredible.* Thankfully for all involved, he has a much greater grasp of the legal issues involved and the gravity of his station than you appear to. I'll look forward to reading the next 10 pages of your repetitious mischaracterizations in the morning, though.

*Actually I don't think we have any criminal hearings tomorrow, but I'm sure we'll have something coming up within the next few days.


The only ones who made themselves look ignorant in that thread was you and a number of others who resorted to name calling and logical fallacies and danced around the facts (a lot like you're doing now). I ignored your trolling then just as I’m going to do now.

I'm done responding to you in this thread. You need to learn that on adult forums like this, Resorting to name calling is against the rules. Maybe then after you learn that I will actually take the time to refute your nonsense.

[RandFan]

So many fallacies in this one paragraph that I don't even have time to point them out... Then point out one, just one. It's rather poor form to simply accuse another of fallacy when you can't demonstrate a single one of those fallacies.

[AmateurScientist]

Bzzt..Wrong!


Attacking my age (Even though he got it wrong) and my education is an ad hominem.

No, it isn't (look up "ad hominem" again, Dustin; you don't understand it yet). I was noting that you lack the educational and professional qualifications to correct me on a legal matter. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and I do. The reason I do is because I have professional expertise in this particular area; I'm a litigator. I'm simply more qualified to speak to these matters than you are. Period.

I brought up your age and mine to illustrate that with age often comes perspective. One might even call it wisdom.

(OK, so you're 19 now. I bow to your infinite wisdom, Mr. Village Elder.)

AS

[Dustin Kesselberg]

NO, NO, NO!

The Supreme Court makes decisions based on legal philosophy, precedent and The Constitution of The United States as guide. You are demonstrably wrong in every possible way and you know nothing of the history of jurisprudence in the United States and the systems of law that preceded our justice system and were a frame work for our system like the English Common law and others.


Who do you think sets legal philosophy and makes precedent????


Good grief. You're the one without knowledge of how our legal system works.

[JamesDillon]

No, it isn't (look up "ad hominem" again, Dustin; you don't understand it yet). I was noting that you lack the educational and professional qualifications to correct me on a legal matter. In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and I do. The reason I do is because I have professional expertise in this particular area; I'm a litigator. I'm simply more qualified to speak to these matters than you are. Period.

I brought up your age and mine to illustrate that with age often comes perspective. One might even call it wisdom.

(OK, so you're 19 now. I bow to your infinite wisdom, Mr. Village Elder.)

AS

Just another fallacy, AS :) As Dustin has already explained to us, you can't learn anything in law school that you can't learn at the public library, so he is no doubt equally qualified to hold an opinion on this matter as you are.

(Ok, really leaving now...)

[RandFan]

Who do you think sets legal philosophy and makes precedent????


Good grief. You're the one without knowledge of how our legal system works.? Huh? You really think that our legal system was set by fiat? What the sam hell are you talking about?

Our system is based on hundreds of years of legal philosophy, thought, discussion, debate and legal decisions. You can't compare that to changes in laws based on sweeping changes of a single dictator.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No, it isn't (look up "ad hominem" again, Dustin; you don't understand it yet). I was noting that you lack the educational and professional qualifications to correct me on a legal matter.

My educational and professional qualifications are 100% irrelevant in this debate. Let me spell it out simply for you since you clearly lack the ability to comprehend it.



A makes claim X.
There is something objectionable about A.
Therefore claim X is false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Now let me translate this to your argument...

Dustin makes claim Judge should prove what he found.
Dustin lacks education or experience.
Therefore claim 'judge should prove what he found' is false.I can't make it any clearer than that. You're committing the ad hominem fallacy. I find it hard to believe you made it through law school with such reasoning skills.

Secondly, I never tried to correct you on any legal matter. I never said you were wrong that the judge didn't have the power to do what he did. You sure lack reading comprehension for a lawyer.





In other words, you don't know what you're talking about, and I do.

Prove it.

The reason I do is because I have professional expertise in this particular area; I'm a litigator. I'm simply more qualified to speak to these matters than you are. Period.

That's not an argument nor is it proof you are correct.

I brought up your age and mine to illustrate that with age often comes perspective. One might even call it wisdom.

Age doesn't = Wisdom

[RandFan]

Who do you think sets legal philosophy and makes precedent????


Good grief. You're the one without knowledge of how our legal system works. I really can't believe that you are accusing me of ignorance when you are making such fundamentally flawed claims.

Our legal system is the result of an evolution of hundreds of years of civilized debate and discourse among groups of people with disparate needs and interests and also trial and error and an analysis of what has achieved justice and what hasn't. It wasn't thrown together over night based on the ego and madness of a single man. Your comparisons are silly and stupid and few if any in the legal profession would take you seriously. You quite simply don't know what you are talking about.

[RandFan]

1. Dustin makes claim Judge should prove what he found. Dustin's claim is ignorant of the issues at hand, the case and the legal system.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I'm going to leave this thread and let people with more patience take my place (if there are any). I can't continue going in circles over and over with people who's only argument are logical fallacies and personal insults.



Have fun.

[RandFan]

I'm going to leave this thread and let people with more patience take my place (if there are any). I can't continue going in circles over and over with people who's only argument are logical fallacies and personal insults.

Have fun. You demonstrably don't know what you are talking about.

[AmateurScientist]

I'm going to leave this thread and let people with more patience take my place (if there are any). I can't continue going in circles over and over with people who's only argument are logical fallacies and personal insults.



Have fun.

Translation:

Even though I try to maintain a facade of being an intellectual heavyweight, I can see that I've been pistol whipped and knocked silly in this debate, so I'll turn tail and run while I still can.

I'm a coward and I cannot admit when I'm wrong and don't have the foggiest idea what I'm talking about.

AS

P.S. This post actually does contain an insult, Dustin. I'll leave it to you to spot it.

[clarsct]

BTW, an appeal to authortity is valid if the authority is valid.
"I think AS is right because he has a nice avatar." is an invalid argument.
"I think AS is right due to his expertise in law and the many years he's dealt with legal issues." Is a valid argument.
See the difference?

The other fact that you are ignoring is that Chadwick has a legal recourse to a writ of Habeus Corpus. The fact that he, as a person also aquainted with the law, has not done so speaks volumes.

It has been explaine dto you, over and over, that the judge is NOT making a claim, here.

1) "I can fly"
2) "Prove it"
1)"I flew yesterday!!"
2) "I don't believe you, prove it!"
1) "No"
2) "F*** off, then, liar!"


Is person 2 lying? Or even being dishonest?

No. The burden of proof is on person 1.

Does person 2 need to justify their assessment of the term 'liar' in this instance. No.

Person 1 has the burden of proof, and it cannot be shifted simply because someone disbelieves you.

[RandFan]

Even though I try to maintain a facade of being an intellectual heavyweight, I can see that I've been pistol whipped and knocked silly in this debate, so I'll turn tail and run while I still can.Comparing SCOTUS to Hitler and Stalin was an interesting argument.

[slingblade]

Does Dustin know that judges don't decide the facts of a case, but only how the law applies to the facts?

Does Dustin know that many court decisions are never heard by a jury, but a judge, or panel of judges, alone?

Does Dustin know that pointing out when a person doesn't have sufficient knowledge of or expertise in a given area to effectively argue a point in that area is not an ad hominem against his argument, but rather a simple statement of fact about the source of his argument?

Does Dustin know we all know he's still reading this thread? :p

[shuize]

On a related note, I've heard of cases in Japan in which judges are reluctant to enforce their own orders. As odd as it sounds, it's a fairly common theme here. Espcially in child custody cases.

For example, the judge orders child visitation rights for the father. Father goes to visit at the appointed time and the mother refuses to let him see the child. Father brings ex-wife/mother back before the court. The judge wags his finger at the mother. Mother promises to comply. Father goes to visit at the appointed time and the mother refuses to let him see the child ....

[Kevin_Lowe]

Without in any way supporting Dustin, I do have to say that it seems silly that the legal system keeps Chadwick in jail in this way. I have no sympathy for Chadwick but as long as the farce continues his wife is missing out on the millions of dollars which are highly likely to exist and which she is partially entitled to.

It seems on the face of it that a better way of dealing with the problem would be to charge Chadwick with something for obstructing judicial procedure, stick him in jail for a specific and finite time, legally get access to the relevant documents about the money and divvy the money up. In a way, holding up the money indefinitely while Chadwick digs is heels in giving him what he wants.

[Ian Osborne]

Having read this thread since I last posted, I see I was wrong to expect the judge to prove the money has gone. He's already proven what he needs to prove, ie. the money was there before the divorce. Chadwick's in jail because he can't, or won't, back up his claim that it's no longer there, and I fail to see any reason why he can't.

However, as Kevin says, surely the courts could sequestrate his assets? If he's squirrelled it all away, there must be a paper trail. Indeed, if there isn't, the court is asking the impossible when it asks for proof the money is gone.

Finally, even though Dustin may be wrong and infuriatingly stubborn, some of the comments levelled at him during this thread are unhelpful and unnecessary.

[shuize]

It seems on the face of it that a better way of dealing with the problem would be to charge Chadwick with something for obstructing judicial procedure, stick him in jail for a specific and finite time, legally get access to the relevant documents about the money and divvy the money up. In a way, holding up the money indefinitely while Chadwick digs is heels in giving him what he wants.

I'm not so sure. If there was an obvious paper trail as to where the money is now, I think the wife's lawyers would have happily shown it to the judge long ago. I really don't think Chadwick needs to be charged with a crime for the judge to freeze an account (although it may be more complicated if the money is hidden away overseas). Otherwise, a large percentage of divorce cases would end up in criminal court.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Without in any way supporting Dustin, I do have to say that it seems silly that the legal system keeps Chadwick in jail in this way. I have no sympathy for Chadwick but as long as the farce continues his wife is missing out on the millions of dollars which are highly likely to exist and which she is partially entitled to.

It seems on the face of it that a better way of dealing with the problem would be to charge Chadwick with something for obstructing judicial procedure, stick him in jail for a specific and finite time, legally get access to the relevant documents about the money and divvy the money up. In a way, holding up the money indefinitely while Chadwick digs is heels in giving him what he wants.



Thanks for the support, mate.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Is that how proof works? What someone "finds" to be true is true regardless of whether he can prove it to be true? Isn't that called an authoritarian rule?

If science worked like that we'd be up a river without a paddle!

You're just not getting it, are you?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

That's true, but it does depend on what you mean by "wrong." It is possible to judge a Supreme Court (or any other court's) opinion on the basis of some kind of extralegal norm-- morality or economic policy or whatever-- and find it lacking. One could even argue that a Court opinion simply applies or arrives at the wrong legal standard. But you're right that a Supreme Court opinion is never, technically, legally wrong, because the Court is the highest arbiter of what the law is. Too many people fail to recognize that fact.

Yes. That is what I was getting at.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

AS's advice makes no sense as I’ve pointed out. He resorts to name calling and logical fallacies to try to make a point. He's no lawyer I’d hire.

I'm guessing you would need a public defender.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who do you think sets legal philosophy and makes precedent????

Baby Jeebus?

[AmateurScientist]

I have no sympathy for Chadwick but as long as the farce continues his wife is missing out on the millions of dollars which are highly likely to exist and which she is partially entitled to.


That's certainly a valid and just concern. I thought of that too, as I'm sure the judge has on many occasions as well.


It seems on the face of it that a better way of dealing with the problem would be to charge Chadwick with something for obstructing judicial procedure, stick him in jail for a specific and finite time, legally get access to the relevant documents about the money and divvy the money up. In a way, holding up the money indefinitely while Chadwick digs is heels in giving him what he wants.

I'm afraid that's not an adequate remedy, nor is it appropriate for a few reasons:

1) What Chadwick is doing isn't obstructing justice. Obstructing justice is a crime in most states in the US. Broadly speaking, it is interfering with a criminal investigation or prosecution. In other words, it is interfering with the executive duties of government. Chadwick is interfering with the judicial branch by willfully refusing to comply with the court's own orders. There is quite a difference.

The judge's being able to hold Chadwick in contempt derives from the court's inherent power to enforce its own orders. The court, of course, is part of the judicial branch of government. The court does not have the authority to order the executive branch (in this case, the local District Attorney, under the control of the state's Attorney General, who works for the Governor) to pursue Chadwick for a criminal offense, of which none has occurred here. Charging Chadwick with a crime like obstructing justice is the exclusive province of the executive branch.

(there are very limited exceptions: for instance, criminal contempt is the exclusive province of the judicial branch and also derives from the court's inherent power to enforce its own orders, and contempt of Congress is an offense which derives from Congress' power to subpoena documents and things and bring forth persons to testify before it for investigations, and to compel them to answer questions truthfully ETA: actually, without looking it up, I suspect contempt of Congress may be a statutory crime and an indictable offense, which would place it in the hands of the executive branch, but I digress)

2) Holding Chadwick for a definite period of time and then releasing him would likely result in his fleeing the jurisdiction of the court and absconding with the money, wherever it is. Remember that according to the story, Chadwick was held in contempt and failed to appear in court afterwards. Instead, he kept a dental appointment he had made and was arrested there by deputy sheriffs when the dental hygenist recognized him from TV as being a fugitive from the court. Again, note that he wasn't arrested for a crime. He was arrested pursuant to the court's inherent power to enforce its own orders -- to appear in court, and to comply with the order to produce or account for the $2.5 million.

I suspect that Chadwick's possibly fleeing the state, and likely the US, was a legitimate concern of the court. His "scorched earth" remark is chilling. It was likely not empty rhetoric. The guy had a reputation for carefully choosing his words, and was a meticulous lawyer who knew very well what that meant, and according to his ex-wife was a control freak (e.g., sex only at very specific times during the week, etc.). I take "scorched earth" in this context to meant exactly what Wildcat said in Post #35 on the first page of this thread. I think Wildcat's right on the money.

Thus, given my belief, it is unlikely releasing Chadwick would result in his now ex-wife's receiving any part of the $2.5 million. Chadwick would simply disappear with it.

3) The court isn't in the position of initiating getting a paper trail following the money. As this is a civil case involving two private litigants, it is up to the ex-wife's lawyers to use the subpoena powers of the court to get the documents. Apparently, they've tried several times and run into a dead end. Chadwick has done a good job hiding the money, apparently. He and his bankers and/or accountants are the ones who can produce the paper trail, and he's not cooperating. He appears to be ready to let hell freeze over before letting his ex-wife see any of the money.

The judge appears ready to force him to suffer the consequences of being so stubborn and spiteful.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Does Dustin know that judges don't decide the facts of a case, but only how the law applies to the facts?


[pedantic quibble] Actually, juries are the triers of fact in cases tried before them, and the judge decides the law in the case and instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case. In cases tried before a judge alone, as is the case in most states in divorce cases (but not all states), the judge acts as the trier of fact and applies the law to the facts as he or she determines them to be.

[/pedantic quibble]

AS

[AmateurScientist]

I'm guessing you would need a public defender.

Dustin would probably represent himself and have a fool for a client.

AS

[Darth Rotor]

According to the judge, all the guy has to do to get out is to cough up the money he has apparently been hiding all this time.
AS
That is called extortion is some places. ;)

DR

[andyandy]

ok....whilst there's been plenty of discussion on the legalities of the case which have been interesting to read, my question would be over the scheme he supposedly invested in

His explanation: He pledged a $5,000 investment in 1990 in a limited partnership called Maison Blanche, designed to invest in the hot European real-estate market and run from the British territory of Gibraltar.

He says the catch was that the investment carried a risk of $2.75 million: Investors like Chadwick would be liable for that much if the Maison Blanche partners issued a capital call.

He says a capital call is exactly what happened -- in January 1993, two months after his wife filed for divorce. The obvious question: Why on earth he would put up $5,000 to a partnership that would later call in $2.5 million?

Chadwick first flashes his penchant for precision: It was $2.502 million, he corrects.

"It was $5,000 to play," he says. "And I anticipated there would be more requested, but it was never even in my wildest imaginations what they ultimately wound up asking me for."

How common are such schemes where you assume such huge potential liabilities? How much capital would you have to expect to be making to make that a "good" investment? Would he not have a paper trail to back up his story if true? Or at least some trail - ie. the $5000 investment bond (or certificate), the capital call notice, or an electronic transfer record from his bank?
I don't do much off-shore investing (:) ) so i don't know how these things work - maybe an JREF investment-type could clear things up......

[The Central Scrutinizer]

How common are such schemes where you assume such huge potential liabilities?

I would suspect they are very uncommon. In fact, so uncommon as to not exist. As in "made up". Which is why he is in jail.

[shuize]

How common are such schemes where you assume such huge potential liabilities? How much capital would you have to expect to be making to make that a "good" investment? Would he not have a paper trail to back up his story if true? Or at least some trail - ie. the $5000 investment bond (or certificate), the capital call notice, or an electronic transfer record from his bank?
I don't do much off-shore investing (:) ) so i don't know how these things work - maybe an JREF investment-type could clear things up......

Andyandy beat me to it, but these were my thoughts as well. What kind of moron exposes himself to $2.75 million in liability on a $5,000 investment? What was he expecting, a 10,000% return? With no paper trail?

Even if he's telling the truth, which I doubt, he deserves to be in jail for being an idiot.

[Ian Osborne]

It's not impossible. Remember the Lloyd's names (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/business_basics/1564756.stm)?

[shuize]

It's not impossible. Remember the Lloyd's names?

Well, I confess, I'm not an expert. But according to the article:

Such a person might be expected to lose in the region of ｣60,000, working on the assumption that they had ｣200,000 invested in the market.

The level of private wealth which an individual applicant must be able to prove in order to become a member of an underwriting syndicate is currently ｣350,000.*
If I'm reading this correctly, a 60,000 loss on a 200,000 pound investment is 30% of the initial amount invested.

Even if one lost the entire 350,000 amount to buy in, that's a 100% loss.

On the other hand, $2.75 million dollars lost on a $5,000 investment is a loss of 550 times the amount invested (or 55,000% if my math is correct).

Not exactly in the same ballpark.

Not to mention, I'm guessing Lloyd's keeps records.

* I'm assuming that's British Pounds, my computer does not display the symbol.

[andyandy]

Well, I confess, I'm not an expert. But according to the article:


If I'm reading this correctly, a 60,000 loss on a 200,000 pound investment is 30% of the initial amount invested.

Even if one lost the entire 350,000 amount to buy in, that's a 100% loss.

On the other hand, $2.75 million dollars lost on a $5,000 investment is a loss of 550 times the amount invested (or 55,000% if my math is correct).

Not exactly in the same ballpark.

Not to mention, I'm guessing Lloyd's keeps records.

* I'm assuming that's British Pounds, my computer does not display the symbol.

the only really high risk investment that springs to mind is some sort of commodities futures style investment, where you stake a relatively small amount - but need a lot to cover potential losses which can be massive......but even so a loss of 550x stake would be pretty crazy......

ps.
hows japan? Whereabouts are you? :)

[JamesDillon]

That is called extortion is some places. ;)

DR

And other government acts would be called assault, battery, false imprisonment, or murder if carried out by private citizens. The government has the authority to act in ways prohibited to private individuals for the purpose of furthering its legitimate aims.

[AmateurScientist]

the only really high risk investment that springs to mind is some sort of commodities futures style investment, where you stake a relatively small amount - but need a lot to cover potential losses which can be massive......but even so a loss of 550x stake would be pretty crazy......

ps.
hows japan? Whereabouts are you? :)

Selling stocks short carries unlimited risk, and buying securities on margin also carries the substantial risk of a margin call, which can result in financial ruin for unwary investors who are pushing the envelope of their credit.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Chadwick's own son describes him as a "conservative investor, slowing building a personal fortune of several million." I suspect very strongly that was a huge factor in the judge's concluding that Chadwick's claim that he risked his entire fortune on an extremely risky real estate investment on another continent is bogus and entirely self-serving.

AS

[Ian Osborne]

Chadwick's own son describes him as a "conservative investor, slowing building a personal fortune of several million." I suspect very strongly that was a huge factor in the judge's concluding that Chadwick's claim that he risked his entire fortune on an extremely risky real estate investment on another continent is bogus and entirely self-serving.

Alternatively, you could argue he gambled the lot and lost to stop his wife getting at it.

[AmateurScientist]

Alternatively, you could argue he gambled the lot and lost to stop his wife getting at it.

Yeah. D'oh! I went to Vegas, put it all on 27 at the roulette table, and lost. Sorry, honey.

AS

[Bob Klase]

Alternatively, you could argue he gambled the lot and lost to stop his wife getting at it.
You could argue that. But I doubt that anybody would buy that either since the gamble started 2 years before the divorce was filed.
He pledged a $5,000 investment in 1990
She filed for divorce in Delaware County on November 23, 1992.

[drkitten]

What kind of moron exposes himself to $2.75 million in liability on a $5,000 investment?

Anyone who sells something short.

Technically, I've done it myself.

[Darat]

...snip... Usually it is a jury but Judges also can find facts. Please see Trier of Fact.

Of course I lack any real authority so I will graciously accept any corrections made by AS.


Out of curiosity any idea of what percentage of trials in the USA are in front of a jury? I believe in the UK the figure is around 2%. (We have "magistrate courts (http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/magistrates_court/index.html)" that deal with most minor offences.)

[casebro]

So, in 11 years, how much could that idiot lawyer have earned? Enough that the 2.5 would have been petty change? The man has an idiot for a lawyer.

[JamesDillon]

Out of curiosity any idea of what percentage of trials in the USA are in front of a jury? I believe in the UK the figure is around 2%. (We have "magistrate courts (http://www.cjsonline.gov.uk/the_cjs/how_it_works/magistrates_court/index.html)" that deal with most minor offences.)

We have magistrate courts as well, and the Supreme Court has held that the right to a jury trial does not extend to misdemeanors, which are generally heard by a magistrate or similar low-level judicial officer. The same extends, I believe, to small-claims civil actions. Of the remaining criminal and civil actions, I would think that most of the ones that go to trial are tried before a jury, but the great majority of such cases never go to trial at all.

So, in 11 years, how much could that idiot lawyer have earned? Enough that the 2.5 would have been petty change? The man has an idiot for a lawyer.
I very much doubt that he's spent the last 11 years in jail on his attorney's advice. This is clearly a matter of spite and vindictiveness that goes beyond any rational cost/benefit analysis.

[Ian Osborne]

So, in 11 years, how much could that idiot lawyer have earned? Enough that the 2.5 would have been petty change? The man has an idiot for a lawyer.

But it's a matter of principle! :(

[andyandy]

Anyone who sells something short.

Technically, I've done it myself.

ok quick finance lesson, selling short is where you hope that a share will decline in value - but if it increases then you lose money right?

but surely people can put some kind of limits on that as a safeguard - say i buy short at $50 but have a trigger at $70 (or whatever) at which i cut my losses and get out....?

[JamesDillon]

ok quick finance lesson, selling short is where you hope that a share will decline in value - but if it increases then you lose money right?
Right.

but surely people can put some kind of limits on that as a safeguard - say i buy short at $50 but have a trigger at $70 (or whatever) at which i cut my losses and get out....?
In practice, most of the time, yes, but that doesn't really change the fact that in theory, short-sellers take on infinite risk. The price of a stock currently trading at $10 could skyrocket to $500 one minute after you sell short, in which case you are, to use a technical term, screwed.

[AmateurScientist]

...but that doesn't really change the fact that in theory, short-sellers take on infinite risk.

That's right, and it is the correct answer on the Series 7 test.

AS

[drkitten]

but surely people can put some kind of limits on that as a safeguard - say i buy short at $50 but have a trigger at $70 (or whatever) at which i cut my losses and get out....?

Only if you can get out.

You have to actually be able to make a purchase in order to get out. If your broker is away from his desk -- you're hosed. If the market is closed -- you're hosed. If the computer hiccups -- you're hosed. If the price rises too fast before your broker can get in and buy at 70 -- you're hosed.

None of those are likely. All of them are possible (and many of them happen on a semi-regular basis, especially the last). Experienced short-sellers recognize the risks and accept them.

[Suddenly]

I'm guessing you would need a public defender.

I hope not.

He is a good example of the sort of people that make PD work exhausting...

[casebro]

So, in 11 years, how much could that idiot lawyer have earned? Enough that the 2.5 would have been petty change? The man has an idiot for a lawyer.

Did I make the faulty assumption that this guy has himself for his attorny?

[shuize]

In practice, most of the time, yes, but that doesn't really change the fact that in theory, short-sellers take on infinite risk. The price of a stock currently trading at $10 could skyrocket to $500 one minute after you sell short, in which case you are, to use a technical term, screwed.

Hmm ... limited upside, infinite downside.

Note to self: Don't sell stock short.

You know, it's probably best this guy got divorced and sat in jail. Can you imagine the conversation he'd have to have with his wife if he were telling the truth?

Him: "Hey, um, Honey, you remember that $5,000 I invested a while back ..."

Her: "Let me guess, you lost the whole $5,000 didn't you?"

Him: "Well ... funny you should say that ..."

[shuize]

Out of curiosity any idea of what percentage of trials in the USA are in front of a jury? I believe in the UK the figure is around 2%.
Five percent is a figure I've heard quoted.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I hope not.

He is a good example of the sort of people that make PD work exhausting...



I have a feeling I’d be much better off getting some random public defender than having AS defend me after seeing his style of argument in this thread. If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic then I cringe to think what a good lawyer could actually do to his arguments.

[shuize]

I hope not.

He is a good example of the sort of people that make PD work exhausting...
Yeah. No kidding.

Lawyer: "Based years of professional experience, and the fact that the state has five witnesses, not to mention your own signed confession, I think you'll be found guilty."

Client: "Define 'guilty.'"

Lawyer: "Well, in this case, that means the judge will probably believe you did the act you're charged with beyond a reasonable doubt and find you guilty."

Client: "Ah ha! So he can't really know I'm guilty!"

Lawyer: "Yes, but you see, that's not the legal stan..."

Client: "And if he don't really know I'm guilty, he can't really find me guilty, now can he?"

Lawyer: "Well, actually he c ..."

Client: "So why am I still in jail?"

Lawyer: "Well that's what I'm trying ..."

Client: "Why aren't you doing your job, man?"

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Yeah. No kidding.

Lawyer: "Based years of professional experience, and the fact that the state has five witnesses, not to mention your own signed confession, I think you'll be found guilty."

Client: "Define 'guilty.'"

Lawyer: "Well, in this case, that means the judge will probably believe you did the act you're charged with beyond a reasonable doubt and find you guilty."

Client: "Ah ha! So he can't really know I'm guilty!"

Lawyer: "Yes, but you see, that's not the legal stan..."

Client: "And if he don't really know I'm guilty, he can't really find me guilty, now can he?"

Lawyer: "Well, actually he c ..."

Client: "So why am I still in jail?"

Lawyer: "Well that's what I'm trying ..."

Client: "Why aren't you doing your job, man?"



What a crude and pathetic straw man attempt at mimicking what I've posted in this thread...



Let me guess, You're a lawyer too?

[AmateurScientist]

I have a feeling I’d be much better off getting some random public defender than having AS defend me after seeing his style of argument in this thread. If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic then I cringe to think what a good lawyer could actually do to his arguments.

You've nothing to worry about, Dustin. I wouldn't represent you in a million years. I do have some professional standards to maintain.

AS

[RandFan]

What a crude and pathetic straw man attempt at mimicking what I've posted in this thread... Crude and pathetic are in the eye of the beholder.

[RandFan]

Does Dustin know we all know he's still reading this thread? :p I'm not sure. ;)

[slingblade]

[pedantic quibble] Actually, juries are the triers of fact in cases tried before them, and the judge decides the law in the case and instructs the jury on the law applicable to the case. In cases tried before a judge alone, as is the case in most states in divorce cases (but not all states), the judge acts as the trier of fact and applies the law to the facts as he or she determines them to be.

[/pedantic quibble]

AS

I see the tags. :p But that's what I tried to say in a not-lawyerly-way. Jury/facts, judge/law. I'm new at this. Only 4 weeks into the semseter. ;)

[Didaktylos]

Given that he's such a control freak - maybe he likes living in jail.

[Mashuna]

Given that he's such a control freak - maybe he likes living in jail.

Wouldn't that make him a controlled freak?

[Mojo]

Alternatively, you could argue he gambled the lot and lost to stop his wife getting at it.I was wondering about this. If it were done after the wife had filed for divorce, would deliberately losing the money count as some sort of contempt if it were done to frustrate any possible settlement decided by the court?

[Kevin_Lowe]

That's certainly a valid and just concern. I thought of that too, as I'm sure the judge has on many occasions as well.


I wasn't saying that the judge should just wave a magic wand and make things happen my way.

I was rather musing out loud, as it were, that as a society we should have a better way of dealing with malicious divorcees than this. I cannot see how any good comes of giving people like Chadwick the option of denying their ex-spouse their assets, at the price of sitting in jail indefinitely at the government's expense.

Only if there is absolutely no way to track down his assets without his cooperation does it make sense to keep him in jail until he cooperates.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

First this:

I'm going to leave this thread and let people with more patience take my place (if there are any). I can't continue going in circles over and over with people who's only argument are logical fallacies and personal insults.

Have fun.

Followed by this:

I have a feeling I’d be much better off getting some random public defender than having AS defend me after seeing his style of argument in this thread. If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic then I cringe to think what a good lawyer could actually do to his arguments.

Tsk, tsk, little Duncetin. Your mommy is going to take the computer away if you keep telling lies to grown ups.

[AmateurScientist]

I see the tags. :p But that's what I tried to say in a not-lawyerly-way. Jury/facts, judge/law. I'm new at this. Only 4 weeks into the semseter. ;)

Yeah, I didn't mean to insult you or your knowledge of the subject matter. I merely thought that mentioning juries in this particular case might serve to confuse matters, because in this divorce case, as in most divorces cases, judge/facts, judge/law.

Good luck with your courses and may you ace all your exams.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

I wasn't saying that the judge should just wave a magic wand and make things happen my way.

I was rather musing out loud, as it were, that as a society we should have a better way of dealing with malicious divorcees than this. I cannot see how any good comes of giving people like Chadwick the option of denying their ex-spouse their assets, at the price of sitting in jail indefinitely at the government's expense.


I agree. There are loads of everyday practical limitations which keep us from implementing ideal solutions.


Only if there is absolutely no way to track down his assets without his cooperation does it make sense to keep him in jail until he cooperates.

I think as a practical matter, in this particular case, it appears that the judge is satisfied (and apparently so are the appellate courts) that only Chadwick can explain where the assets are/went, and so far he's not cooperating; hell, he's being as defiant of the court and its authority as he can. What then, do you do with the guy? I understand everyone's criticism that 11 years seems like an extremely long time to remain in jail for civil contempt, and it is. Then again, the guy can walk out any day he want to in my opinion, given the truth of the story as reported to us. He's a great example of cutting off one's nose to spite his face (and his ex).

AS

[AmateurScientist]

I was wondering about this. If it were done after the wife had filed for divorce, would deliberately losing the money count as some sort of contempt if it were done to frustrate any possible settlement decided by the court?

Probably. These days most courts in the US are wise to the fact that some litigants like Chadwick do deliberately transfer or otherwise dispose of valuable martial assets in an attempt to frustrate the court's ability to consider them for division in the divorce. Many courts, as is the case in my local jurisdiction, routinely enter a standing pretrial order (one applicable to all cases) ordering both parties to safeguard and maintain all assets in their possession or under their control inviolate, and to preserve their status quo. Many of those pretrial orders are quite specific in ordering both parties not to transfer, sell, bargain, exchange, or otherwise dispose of any such assets during the pendency of the divorce litigation, and until further order of the court.

A willful violation of such standing orders does possibly subject one to sanctions for contempt of court. Chadwick's is an extreme case.

AS

[Kevin_Lowe]

I agree. There are loads of everyday practical limitations which keep us from implementing ideal solutions.


I won't argue the point. In my experience non-lawyers tend to be too quick to say that the way things currently work should be changed, and lawyers tend to be too quick to say that the way things currently work should not be changed.


I think as a practical matter, in this particular case, it appears that the judge is satisfied (and apparently so are the appellate courts) that only Chadwick can explain where the assets are/went, and so far he's not cooperating; hell, he's being as defiant of the court and its authority as he can. What then, do you do with the guy?


Unless I've gotten muddled, I thought we had established that the civil court keeping Chadwick locked up did not have the legal instruments necessary to get the details of Chadwick's finances out of his bank/accountant/whoever. Whereas if he had been charged with a criminal offence such details would have been obtained with a subpoena.

If I'm wrong on that, mea culpa and the current situation is indeed unavoidable.

If I'm not wrong then it would seem that a better way of proceeding would be to force Chadwick's bank manager, accountant or whoever to hand over all relevant documentation and to then seize whatever portion of Chadwick's assets the court decides his wife is entitled to. I imagine that would mean getting the legislature to pass a law criminalising behaviour like Chadwick's.


I understand everyone's criticism that 11 years seems like an extremely long time to remain in jail for civil contempt, and it is. Then again, the guy can walk out any day he want to in my opinion, given the truth of the story as reported to us. He's a great example of cutting off one's nose to spite his face (and his ex).


As I said earlier, I think it's not a good idea to give people the option of doing that. Maybe there is no way to avoid giving people that option, and Chadwick's case is certainly an unusual one that you can't blame legislators for not foreseeing.

[JamesDillon]

I won't argue the point. In my experience non-lawyers tend to be too quick to say that the way things currently work should be changed, and lawyers tend to be too quick to say that the way things currently work should not be changed.
That is very much the case, which is not to say that that's what you've been doing, as I don't think it is. But it is somewhat frustrating when, ah, other people, seem to think that the infinite wisdom of a high school diploma gives them a greater degree of insight into the intricacies of the legal system than those of us who have been studying and working in that system for years.

Unless I've gotten muddled, I thought we had established that the civil court keeping Chadwick locked up did not have the legal instruments necessary to get the details of Chadwick's finances out of his bank/accountant/whoever. Whereas if he had been charged with a criminal offence such details would have been obtained with a subpoena.
To the contrary, the ex-wife's attorneys do have the authority to subpoena Chadwick's financial records in the divorce action; Chadwick's failure to comply with such a subpoena is most likely the basis of the court's contempt decree. The wife's attorneys could probably obtain the financial records by serving the subpoena directly on the bank, but the problem (apparently, as I understand it) is that, without Chadwick's cooperation, they have no idea which bank or financial institution has the records, because they have no idea where the money is. I don't see how a criminal indictment could change that, and in any case, it's generally considered unethical, or at least bad form, to bring a civil or criminal action against someone simply for the purpose of obtaining discovery (though it certainly happens on occasion).

If I'm not wrong then it would seem that a better way of proceeding would be to force Chadwick's bank manager, accountant or whoever to hand over all relevant documentation and to then seize whatever portion of Chadwick's assets the court decides his wife is entitled to. I imagine that would mean getting the legislature to pass a law criminalising behaviour like Chadwick's.
If the wife knew which accountant or bank to subpoena, that would certainly work, but again, without Chadwick's cooperation, they have no idea where the money went, and therefore no idea whom to subpoena.

Maybe there is no way to avoid giving people that option, and Chadwick's case is certainly an unusual one that you can't blame legislators for not foreseeing.

Legislators* have foreseen that parties may at times refuse to cooperate with a judicial order, and have provided the remedy of civil contempt for just such occasions. The idea generally is that after a few days, or a month, of civil confinement, the party will see the error of its ways and comply with the judicial order. A civil confinement lasting for 11 years is obviously well outside the norm, but as AmateurScientist has pointed out, Chadwick only has himself to blame for that, as he could have walked out of jail literally any day in the last 11 years simply by agreeing to provide the court with the documentation that it asked for. I don't think he's entitled to any degree of sympathy. The court's imposition of confinement may seem draconian, but it is a situation of his own creation, and where the only alternative is to let him walk off with a substantial chunk of marital assets, I think it's justified.


* Courts, actually, since I don't think there's a legislative basis for the court's inherent power to enforce its own judgments, but that's beside the point

[Ian Osborne]

Maybe in light of his continued non-cooperation they should transfer him to a harsher jail, and put him in a cell with a well endowed bubba? Just a thought...

[Kevin_Lowe]

To the contrary, the ex-wife's attorneys do have the authority to subpoena Chadwick's financial records in the divorce action; Chadwick's failure to comply with such a subpoena is most likely the basis of the court's contempt decree. The wife's attorneys could probably obtain the financial records by serving the subpoena directly on the bank, but the problem (apparently, as I understand it) is that, without Chadwick's cooperation, they have no idea which bank or financial institution has the records, because they have no idea where the money is. I don't see how a criminal indictment could change that, and in any case, it's generally considered unethical, or at least bad form, to bring a civil or criminal action against someone simply for the purpose of obtaining discovery (though it certainly happens on occasion).


Thanks for the informative answer.

In cases of white-collar crime, how are such issues handled? I naively assumed that one could not stymie an investigation just by not telling investigators where the money is currently, and that unless all of his business was carried out with cash that it would be possible to track Chadwick's money. Presumably at some point somebody paid him, and that money must have gone into an account at a financial institution, and from there been transferred out and so on and so forth.


Legislators* have foreseen that parties may at times refuse to cooperate with a judicial order, and have provided the remedy of civil contempt for just such occasions. [snippage]

* Courts, actually, since I don't think there's a legislative basis for the court's inherent power to enforce its own judgments, but that's beside the point

In this case it seems manifest that the remedy has not worked for eleven years, and shows no immediate prospect of working, so calling it a remedy in this (very unusual) case is probably being too generous.

My thinking is merely that the remedy is clearly not working in this case, and that if there are other approaches that might work we should look at them. It may turn out there is no better approach than the current one.

As a minor threadjack, is it safe to assume that there are terribly weighty legal reasons why we don't give robbers who refuse to say where they hid the loot the same treatment?

[marksman]

The problem isn't just that they don't know which bank to use, but that they don't know what name the account is under. The husband could have created a shell company and placed the funds into an account under this fictional company's name. Even if you subpoena the bank, they can't find the money if they don't know what they're looking for.

The government isn't omnipotent. The husband is smart and likely knows many tricks to hiding assets. I'm not sure what other options the court has to compel compliance with its order and I don't think the husband should be rewarded for his cleverness by releasing him so he can move to Paraguay and leave his ex-wife high and dry.

[NoZed Avenger]

You've nothing to worry about, Dustin. I wouldn't represent you in a million years. I do have some professional standards to maintain.


If I ever had the need (and was in the correct state), AS is the first guy I'd call.

The funny part is not Dustin having his head handed to him. The funny part is that he doesn't even notice that he's two foot shorter.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for the informative answer.

In cases of white-collar crime, how are such issues handled? I naively assumed that one could not stymie an investigation just by not telling investigators where the money is currently, and that unless all of his business was carried out with cash that it would be possible to track Chadwick's money. Presumably at some point somebody paid him, and that money must have gone into an account at a financial institution, and from there been transferred out and so on and so forth.

That is a very different situation, because for one there is a crime commited there and not here. He is not in jail for a crime, he is in jail becuase he has not done what the court told him to do.


In this case it seems manifest that the remedy has not worked for eleven years, and shows no immediate prospect of working, so calling it a remedy in this (very unusual) case is probably being too generous.

And what would work? They have looked for the money and have not found it, and there is a certain limit to how much searching you can do or you will spend more searching for the money than the money is worth.

[ponderingturtle]

If I ever had the need (and was in the correct state), AS is the first guy I'd call.

The funny part is not Dustin having his head handed to him. The funny part is that he doesn't even notice that he's two foot shorter.

Mabey Dustin should have an avatar of the black knight from monty pythons holy grail.

[Ian Osborne]

Mabey Dustin should have an avatar of the black knight from monty pythons holy grail.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8845100893dcc2b.jpg

[drkitten]

In cases of white-collar crime, how are such issues handled? I naively assumed that one could not stymie an investigation just by not telling investigators where the money is currently, and that unless all of his business was carried out with cash that it would be possible to track Chadwick's money. Presumably at some point somebody paid him, and that money must have gone into an account at a financial institution, and from there been transferred out and so on and so forth.

...

As a minor threadjack, is it safe to assume that there are terribly weighty legal reasons why we don't give robbers who refuse to say where they hid the loot the same treatment?

Well, one could stymie an investigation by not telling investigators where the money currently is. I'm not sure how smart that would be as a long-term strategy. After all, the court in this particular case isn't under any (substantive) doubt about whether or not Chadwick actually hid the money -- so if Chadwick were under some sort of criminal investigation, he could and would probably be convicted anyway, even without his revelation of the exact location of the money.

It boils down to two cases, really. In the first case, the person hiding the money is the same as the person who stole it. In this case, the judge will note this behavior at sentencing time and up the penalty accordingly -- the defendant would be looking at a larger fine and longer jail time than he would if he had cooperated. Simply ordering the defendant to "make restitution" will essentially negate the possibility of the him profiting by staying mum....

In the other case, the guy hiding the money isn't the defendant -- but is guilty of obstructing justice. Which again is bad mojo, and not the sort of thing a sensible person wants to risk.

The problem is that not all people are sensible.

[Suddenly]

I have a feeling I’d be much better off getting some random public defender than having AS defend me after seeing his style of argument in this thread. If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic then I cringe to think what a good lawyer could actually do to his arguments.

1) I'm a good lawyer. At least at trying criminal cases.

2) What I could do, and would do, is agree with him.

3) Sorry to make you cringe.

[toddjh]

If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic

That's a pretty big if.

[drkitten]

That's a pretty big if.

It's another of his ill-thought-out crusades, though.

He's got a whole other set of rants against the university system, because it's obvious that he could do a better job of practicing law or medicine despite his lack of formal credentials in that area. And of course, the real lawyers are snickering into their Brooks Brothers' ties if not shaking their well-groomed heads in disbelief....

[Suddenly]

What a crude and pathetic straw man attempt at mimicking what I've posted in this thread...



Let me guess, You're a lawyer too?

Let me try then:

Lawyer: It looks like you will be found guilty, given the videotape of the crime, the nine witnesses, and the DNA evidence at the scene.

Dustin: I'm smarter than you. They didn't read me my rights.

L: Well, since they didn't get a confession fr...

D: Another thing!! Why can't I just represent myself? That they won't allow me to do so unless I have a college degree and a law degree is the same as racial discrimination!!!

L: Actually, here is a case that says you can represent yourself.

D: So? That's a strawman. Why aren't you getting the case dismissed because they didn't read me my rights?

L: As I said before, that isn't so becau...

D: How do you know that?

L: Well, I've a lot of experience in this area and the Supreme Court has clearly said ...

D: Quit appealing to authority!!! Just because you and some other people went to law school and got appointed judges doesn't mean you are smarter than me!!! Another thing. Why am I in jail if I haven't been proven guilty!!! Being in jail is illegal unless I'm proven guilty.

L: Actually, according to the legislature, the court can order you held pending trial based unless you can post a bond set by the court...

D: More appeals to authority!!! If you weren't stupid and corrupt I'd be out of jail because they didn't read me my rights. That is obvious.

L: I'm sorry but I don't think you have the background to understand that this just isn't...

D: Fine. Insult me. You must be a lousy lawyer if all you can do is appeal to authority and resort to insults.

L: Sigh.

[AmateurScientist]

If I ever had the need (and was in the correct state), AS is the first guy I'd call.

Thanks, NoZed. I consider that one of the highest compliments I could receive, and I would be honored to represent you given the chance.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

1) I'm a good lawyer. At least at trying criminal cases.

2) What I could do, and would do, is agree with him.

3) Sorry to make you cringe.

He he. Don't be sorry. You know you enjoyed it.

AS

[Art Vandelay]

This thread just shows how lawyers live in their very own lttle world. If it weren't for the fact that they, pretty much by definition, control the legal system, they'd be laughed of the country.

Putting someone in jail in order to compel them to do something isn't "punishment". Putting someone in jail for violating an order is completely different from a "crime". Despotic power is "inherent" to a judge. People who are held in contempt "hold the keys" to their jail cells. The Supreme Court is by definition right. No one who hasn't passed the bar is allowed to discuss legal issues.

Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

This thread just shows how lawyers live in their very own lttle world. If it weren't for the fact that they, pretty much by definition, control the legal system, they'd be laughed of the country.

Putting someone in jail in order to compel them to do something isn't "punishment". Putting someone in jail for violating an order is completely different from a "crime". Despotic power is "inherent" to a judge. People who are held in contempt "hold the keys" to their jail cells. The Supreme Court is by definition right. No one who hasn't passed the bar is allowed to discuss legal issues.

Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge.

Well, we finally hear from the Badnarik loonies.

Come on you guys, stop laughing. Art is serious about this stuff.

[toddjh]

Putting someone in jail in order to compel them to do something isn't "punishment".

What use are courts if their decisions are optional? You'd rather the courts had no teeth and anybody was free to ignore their orders with impunity?

Despotic power is "inherent" to a judge.

No, the power to enforce decisions is inherent to the judicial system. That power is invested in the judge. And despotic? The guy has multiple avenues of recourse if he's being treated unjustly.

People who are held in contempt "hold the keys" to their jail cells.

All he has to do is account for the money or convince another judge that he doesn't have it. If I'm reading this correctly, he's attempted to do the latter over forty times and never succeeded.

The Supreme Court is by definition right.

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law. When it comes to matters of legal interpretation, yes, they have the last word.

And gee, I'm not even a lawyer. They're good brainwashers.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

What use are courts if their decisions are optional? You'd rather the courts had no teeth and anybody was free to ignore their orders with impunity?

How can you be so ignorant? Don't you know that they won't need judges in Libertopia. No one will ever break the law. Libertopia will be one big HappyLand! All citizens will join hands and sing songs of praise to President Badnarik! Those who don't will be tossed in jail automatically, with out trial. So you see, even they won't need a judge!

[JamesDillon]

This thread just shows how lawyers live in their very own lttle world. If it weren't for the fact that they, pretty much by definition, control the legal system, they'd be laughed of the country.

Putting someone in jail in order to compel them to do something isn't "punishment". Putting someone in jail for violating an order is completely different from a "crime". Despotic power is "inherent" to a judge. People who are held in contempt "hold the keys" to their jail cells. The Supreme Court is by definition right. No one who hasn't passed the bar is allowed to discuss legal issues.

Freedom is slavery. War is peace. Ignorance is knowledge.

That's a fine effort, Art, but we already have two excellent parodies of Dustin's inane arguments from ignorance in the thread. We didn't really need another one.

[varwoche]

...they'd be laughed of the country.
[Art] You left out the word out. [/Vandelay]

[Tailgater]

I have a question for the lawyers out there. Would it be legal for the judge to use a little imagination with this case by keeping him out of jail and garnishing his wages to his wife? Save the tax payers from housing him, help pay off his wife, and really tick him off for not getting his way.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I have a question for the lawyers out there. Would it be legal for the judge to use a little imagination with this case by keeping him out of jail and garnishing his wages to his wife? Save the tax payers from housing him, help pay off his wife, and really tick him off for not getting his way.

Except he may not have any "wages" to garnish. Just a pile of cash where he takes a little off of it each month.

[JamesDillon]

I have a question for the lawyers out there. Would it be legal for the judge to use a little imagination with this case by keeping him out of jail and garnishing his wages to his wife? Save the tax payers from housing him, help pay off his wife, and really tick him off for not getting his way.

Not on a finding of civil contempt. In order to justify garnishment, the judge would have to find, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, that Chadwick actually had, and intentionally concealed, a substantial amount of money. The problem is, it's impossible to prove that so long as Chadwick refuses to comply with the court's order to produce his financial records, and Chadwick knows this. So the contempt order is the only means by which the court can try to do justice here.

[Tailgater]

Except he may not have any "wages" to garnish. Just a pile of cash where he takes a little off of it each month.

Not a bad way to find the cash. Catch him with his hand in the cookie jar.

[AmateurScientist]

This thread just shows how lawyers live in their very own lttle world. If it weren't for the fact that they, pretty much by definition, control the legal system, they'd be laughed of the country.



What an interesting observation. Given that lawyers are officers of the court, then yes, they are an integral part of the legal system. Actually, it's judges who actually control the legal system, but then with very few exceptions, and then only under limited circumstances, all judges are lawyers, so I suppose it's one and the same. Maybe we are due for an overhaul of the legal system.

Perhaps we would all be better off if we let medical doctors run the legal system. They could argue death row appeals and draft 135 page business contracts and defend persons in discovery depositions when they are sued for negligence in automobile collisions. We could then let lawyers take over hospital emergency rooms and perform surgery and diagnose patients with cancer. I'm sure that would be a fine change. The world would be a much better place.

AS

[Tailgater]

Not on a finding of civil contempt. In order to justify garnishment, the judge would have to find, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, that Chadwick actually had, and intentionally concealed, a substantial amount of money. The problem is, it's impossible to prove that so long as Chadwick refuses to comply with the court's order to produce his financial records, and Chadwick knows this. So the contempt order is the only means by which the court can try to do justice here.

I thought that might be the case. Thanks. Is imprisonment the only option for contempt?

[JamesDillon]

I thought that might be the case. Thanks. Is imprisonment the only option for contempt?

I'm not sure. Imprisonment is generally the usual penalty for civil contempt; I don't know if the court has authority to impose a monetary fine (which is the only obvious alternative that I can see) for, say, each day that the party refuses to comply or not. Courts do have authority to impose monetary sanctions on parties or their attorney for particularly bad conduct in litigation, but I don't know if such measures could be used as contempt penalties. In any case, the judge here would be ill-advised to do so, because he'd just be hurting the ex-wife by charging Chadwick a monetary penalty. It sounds like Chadwick would much sooner let the government bankrupt him in contempt fees than let his ex-wife get the money.

[AmateurScientist]

Not on a finding of civil contempt. In order to justify garnishment, the judge would have to find, on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, that Chadwick actually had, and intentionally concealed, a substantial amount of money. The problem is, it's impossible to prove that so long as Chadwick refuses to comply with the court's order to produce his financial records, and Chadwick knows this. So the contempt order is the only means by which the court can try to do justice here.

Actually, the court would have to enter a final judgment awarding the ex-wife a sum certain, and the time for perfecting an appeal would have to run. Only then would the ex-wife's lawyer be able to attempt to garnish Chadwick's wages, bank accounts, or other sums owed him by third parties, or to attach his assets and have them seized by the sheriff's department. It's not the court that initiates garnishment proceedings; it's the judgment creditor.

Garnishing the wages of a self-employed person is for all intents and purposes fruitless. Collecting judgments from individuals -- even those gainfully employed -- can be very frustrating. That's why I've always hated suing individuals when there is no insurance coverage. You can win the battle, but lose the war. Garnishing wages is often the event which triggers individuals to seek protection from the bankrupcty courts. Far too often it works, much to the chagrin of judgment creditors.

AS

[shuize]

I have a question for the lawyers out there. Would it be legal for the judge to use a little imagination with this case by keeping him out of jail and garnishing his wages to his wife? Save the tax payers from housing him, help pay off his wife, and really tick him off for not getting his way.

Judge: O.K. Mr. Chadwick, you win. I'm going to let you out of jail but we're going to garnish your wages until you pay back the $2.75 million. Now, whatever you do, don't flee the jurisdication and live the rest of your life on a beach in Grand Cayman, OK?

Chadwick: Okie dokie, Judge.

[RandFan]

I have a feeling I’d be much better off getting some random public defender than having AS defend me after seeing his style of argument in this thread. If I, a 19 year old without a law degree can point out his fallacies and skips of logic then I cringe to think what a good lawyer could actually do to his arguments. Dustin, speaking of the law, you need to learn The First Law of Holes. When you are in one, stop digging. Of course that requires an ability to recognize when you are in one. Now, you can continue to accuse everyone of fallacy and "skips of logic" but no one is buying it.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Let me try then:

Lawyer: It looks like you will be found guilty, given the videotape of the crime, the nine witnesses, and the DNA evidence at the scene.

Dustin: I'm smarter than you. They didn't read me my rights.

L: Well, since they didn't get a confession fr...

D: Another thing!! Why can't I just represent myself? That they won't allow me to do so unless I have a college degree and a law degree is the same as racial discrimination!!!

L: Actually, here is a case that says you can represent yourself.

D: So? That's a strawman. Why aren't you getting the case dismissed because they didn't read me my rights?

L: As I said before, that isn't so becau...

D: How do you know that?

L: Well, I've a lot of experience in this area and the Supreme Court has clearly said ...

D: Quit appealing to authority!!! Just because you and some other people went to law school and got appointed judges doesn't mean you are smarter than me!!! Another thing. Why am I in jail if I haven't been proven guilty!!! Being in jail is illegal unless I'm proven guilty.

L: Actually, according to the legislature, the court can order you held pending trial based unless you can post a bond set by the court...

D: More appeals to authority!!! If you weren't stupid and corrupt I'd be out of jail because they didn't read me my rights. That is obvious.

L: I'm sorry but I don't think you have the background to understand that this just isn't...

D: Fine. Insult me. You must be a lousy lawyer if all you can do is appeal to authority and resort to insults.

L: Sigh.



If that's what you got from this thread then you need to go back to 5th grade English class. I guess law schools today setting the bar lower and lower...I shouldn't have a problem graduating!

[AmateurScientist]

If that's what you got from this thread then you need to go back to 5th grade English class. I guess law schools today setting the bar lower and lower...I shouldn't have a problem graduating!

Oh, Suddenly, that's gotta hurt. A Dustin smackdown.

AS

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Oh, Suddenly, that's gotta hurt. A Dustin smackdown.

AS

He thunk it up during Drivers Ed class.

[Bob Klase]

If that's what you got from this thread then you need to go back to 5th grade English class. I guess law schools today setting the bar lower and lower...I shouldn't have a problem graduating!

Absolutely. You should be able to graduate 5th grade with no problems.

[Suddenly]

If that's what you got from this thread then you need to go back to 5th grade English class. I guess law schools today setting the bar lower and lower...I shouldn't have a problem graduating!

Talk is cheap.

Scrut nailed it when he referenced Badnarik. The same mindset: any institution that does not agree with your point of view and recognize you as brilliant must by defintion be worthless.

Just go on thinking that you are a genius unrecognized by a corrupt and myopic society. Pop open a Dr. Nut and scribble furiously in the public Big Chief tablet that is the internet.

Appealing to a lawyer's opinion is not an argument from authority when it deals with questions of law. That you lack education doesn't mean we have to lower our credibility to your level. Your statements have been heard on their merits and found wanting by more than one person in a position to critically appraise same.

Yet you consider any correction, any explaination of above to be an insult.

Why? Because your reasoning seems to begin with one principle: I am right.

Abandoning this principle is the first step towards not only maturity, but actual (not self-imagined) wisdom.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Absolutely. You should be able to graduate 5th grade with no problems.



It seems a lot of people on this forum have reading comprehension problems. Is that because they aren't originally English speakers or something? That's puzzled me. It's like they can't read and comprehend basic English sentences.

[drkitten]

It seems a lot of people on this forum have reading comprehension problems.

No. The problems is twofold, and at the other end

1) you can't write for toffee
2) you can't THINK for toffee

As a result, most of what you write comes out like the half-thought-out illiterate ramblings of an undereducated, arrogant, jerk.

Please keep in mind the Membership Agreement and do not use insults. Argue the point, not the poster.

[JamesDillon]

Just go on thinking that you are a genius unrecognized by a corrupt and myopic society. Pop open a Dr. Nut and scribble furiously in the public Big Chief tablet that is the internet.

Excellent use of the quasi-obscure reference. Oddly, just last night I was contemplating going as Ignatius J. Reilly for Halloween this year.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Talk is cheap.

Scrut nailed it when he referenced Badnarik. The same mindset: any institution that does not agree with your point of view and recognize you as brilliant must by defintion be worthless.

Just go on thinking that you are a genius unrecognized by a corrupt and myopic society. Pop open a Dr. Nut and scribble furiously in the public Big Chief tablet that is the internet.

Appealing to a lawyer's opinion is not an argument from authority when it deals with questions of law. That you lack education doesn't mean we have to lower our credibility to your level. Your statements have been heard on their merits and found wanting by more than one person in a position to critically appraise same.

Yet you consider any correction, any explaination of above to be an insult.

Why? Because your reasoning seems to begin with one principle: I am right.

Abandoning this principle is the first step towards not only maturity, but actual (not self-imagined) wisdom.


If you would have actually taken the time to READ this thread and the posts that I have made then you would realize that I am NOT arguing what is or isn't the law. I've pointed out at least twice that I was not challenging AS's claims that what the judge did was legal. What I DID say was that judges in the American legal system have too much power to overrule the decision of the Jury on a whim and that in this specific case there could always be a possibility that the man is telling the truth and is unable to prove that.

Nowhere in this thread did I argue what was or wasn't the law as you implied in your pathetic little mocking of me. This would of been clear to you had you actually read my posts. However it's obvious that you did not read my posts. You likely skimmed through them making assumptions on my arguments as you went along and then decided I didn't know what I was saying.

You call yourself a lawyer and you can't even spot basic logical fallacies? Just because AS is a lawyer and I’m not that doesn't make his argument correct. This is the first rule of logic. Ones credentials are irrelevant to the argument. The only thing relevant is the argument itself. Credibility has nothing to do with debates. This isn't a court of law where someone is testifying about something for which they have absolutely no proof and just their word. No ones 'credibility' is relevant in this debate. Especially not yours or mine.


You're a lawyer? Great. You clearly have plenty to learn about logic and argumentation then. Maybe you would be a better lawyer if you stopped using logical fallacies to try to make points. Or maybe you find rhetoric and fallacies help you in your career? Maybe that's why you're so used to using them?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

No. The problems is twofold, and at the other end

1) you can't write for toffee
2) you can't THINK for toffee

As a result, most of what you write comes out like the half-thought-out illiterate ramblings of an undereducated, arrogant, jerk.


Perfect example of why I don't spend much time arguing with people like yourself. You..


Resort to pathetic insults to try to make a point which i've already refuted.
Resort to pathetic fallacies to try to make points which i've already refuted.
Continue to claim I am "undereducated" yet continue to act like a 3rd graderI think you need to stop being so bitter and angry and then you could see things more clearly.


BTW your post has been reported for use of ignorant and childish insults and personal attacks.

[Suddenly]

If you would have actually taken the time to READ this thread and the posts that I have made then you would realize that I am NOT arguing what is or isn't the law. I've pointed out at least twice that I was not challenging AS's claims that what the judge did was legal. What I DID say was that judges in the American legal system have too much power to overrule the decision of the Jury on a whim and that in this specific case there could always be a possibility that the man is telling the truth and is unable to prove that.



The man had every chance to prove by the appropriate burden that he was telling the truth. Actually, he had every chance to claim that the evidence did not satisfy the burden of proof against him.



Nowhere in this thread did I argue what was or wasn't the law as you implied in your pathetic little mocking of me. This would of been clear to you had you actually read my posts. However it's obvious that you did not read my posts. You likely skimmed through them making assumptions on my arguments as you went along and then decided I didn't know what I was saying.



Translation: You disagree with me so you must either be stupid or not paying attention because I am not wrong and smarter than you.

I've read them. You give make ipse dixit statements and attack criticism with incorrect claims of logical fallacy. Yawn.



You call yourself a lawyer and you can't even spot basic logical fallacies?


I can, but this is not really essential to being a lawyer. Helpful, although often helpful in an offensive sense.



Just because AS is a lawyer and I’m not that doesn't make his argument correct. This is the first rule of logic. Ones credentials are irrelevant to the argument. The only thing relevant is the argument itself. Credibility has nothing to do with debates. This isn't a court of law where someone is testifying about something for which they have absolutely no proof and just their word. No ones 'credibility' is relevant in this debate. Especially not yours or mine.



In a legal argument his credentials make it more likely that his premises are true. While the truth of the premises are irrelevant to the validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) of the argument, it is essential to the soundness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) of the argument. A sound argument requires that the premises be true.

Validity speaks only to the logical workings of and argument and has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. If I have as premises that:

All people are purple
Socrates is a person

Then the conclusion:

Socrates is purple

Is totally valid. However, it is not sound as all people are not purple. If we use true premises:

All people are mortal
Socrates is a person
Socrates is mortal

This is valid and sound.

In the real world, soundness is essential for an argument to have any use. That a lawyer is more likely to start with true premises than someone with no legal training is clearly a sound premise.

The core premise that started you out on the road to unsoundness:

The burden of proof is(should be) on the one making the initial claim(the judge).

The judge does not make the claim. In a civil (rather than criminal) case, the plaintiff makes a claim that the plaintiff must prove by the appropriate burden of truth. If the plaintiff can present sufficent evidence to establish his case, the defendant then provides contrary evidence. The judge (or a jury in many cases) is the trier of fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trier_of_fact) decides questions of credibility where contradictory evidence is presented, and decides whether the evidence as a whole proves the case by the appropriate burden.

The judge decides whether the claim has been proven, as well as decide legal questions as to whether evidence can be legally considered, etc.






You're a lawyer? Great. You clearly have plenty to learn about logic and argumentation then. Maybe you would be a better lawyer if you stopped using logical fallacies to try to make points. Or maybe you find rhetoric and fallacies help you in your career? Maybe that's why you're so used to using them?

You could point out a logical fallacy I have made here. Rather you incorrectly apply basic logical concepts. You mistake the proper use of authority to establish the premise of an argument for the use of authority to claim the logic therein is valid. The former is proper when the authority relates to the field in question, like a lawyer discussing law.

In a delicious twist of irony, in this last paragraph you use this very fallacy in reverse. Because of my status in one field, you conclude that my logic is invalid.

[JamesDillon]

Resort to pathetic fallacies to try to make points which i've already refuted.

Can you please demonstrate where drkitten ascribed human characteristics to inanimate objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy) in her criticism of your posts?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

In a legal argument his credentials make it more likely that his premises are true. While the truth of the premises are irrelevant to the validity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity) of the argument, it is essential to the soundness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness) of the argument. A sound argument requires that the premises be true.

Validity speaks only to the logical workings of and argument and has nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion. If I have as premises that:

All people are purple
Socrates is a person

Then the conclusion:

Socrates is purple

Is totally valid. However, it is not sound as all people are not purple. If we use true premises:

All people are mortal
Socrates is a person
Socrates is mortal

This is valid and sound.

In the real world, soundness is essential for an argument to have any use. That a lawyer is more likely to start with true premises than someone with no legal training is clearly a sound premise.


You're confused again. You can't say that "Lawyers are more likely to have a correct premise therefore their arguments are better ipso facto". This is a fallacy. Each argument stands alone. Lawyers may or may not be more likely to have correct premises. It's totally irrelevant. Their likelihood to have a correct premise has absolutely no bearing on the debate itself. The only thing that has bearing on the debate is the argument being presented, NOT the presenter.



The core premise that started you out on the road to unsoundness:




You could point out a logical fallacy I have made here. Rather you incorrectly apply basic logical concepts. You mistake the proper use of authority to establish the premise of an argument for the use of authority to claim the logic therein is valid. The former is proper when the authority relates to the field in question, like a lawyer discussing law.

In a delicious twist of irony, in this last paragraph you use this very fallacy in reverse. Because of my status in one field, you conclude that my logic is invalid.


By your logic then an Astronomer who claims the Earth is moving in a square orbit has more validity than I who claims it's orbit is more elliptical, Just by the fact that the person is an expert in the field relating to the claim being made?

You're kidding, Right?

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Can you please demonstrate where drkitten ascribed human characteristics to inanimate objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathetic_fallacy) in her criticism of your posts?



That's real funny, But contributes absolutely nothing to this thread.

[RandFan]

You're confused again. You can't say that "Lawyers are more likely to have a correct premise therefore their arguments are better ipso facto". This is a fallacy. Each argument stands alone. Lawyers may or may not be more likely to have correct premises. It's totally irrelevant. Their likelihood to have a correct premise has absolutely no bearing on the debate itself. The only thing that has bearing on the debate is the argument being presented, NOT the presenter.

The core premise that started you out on the road to unsoundness:

By your logic then an Astronomer who claims the Earth is moving in a square orbit has more validity than I who claims it's orbit is more elliptical, Just by the fact that the person is an expert in the field relating to the claim being made?

You're kidding, Right? Still digging.

[shuize]

What I DID say was that judges in the American legal system have too much power to overrule the decision of the Jury on a whim ...

First, judges do not have the power to overrule jury acquittals in the United States. Since you seem concerned about the possibility of innocent people being wrongly imprisoned, you need not worry that judges are overruling juries to send them there. Second, it's irrelevant to this discussion: juries are not involved in contempt of court determinations.

... and that in this specific case there could always be a possibility that the man is telling the truth and is unable to prove that.
Yes. There is that possibility. Of course, forty-two separate appellate smack downs tend weaken that argument ... just a bit.

[JamesDillon]

First, judges do not have the power to overrule jury aquittals in the United States. Since you seem concerned about the possibility of innocent people being wrongly imprisoned, you need not worry that judges are overruling juries to send them there. Second, it's irrelevant to this discussion. Juries are not involved in contempt of court determinations.
It's also not true that judges have the power to overrule a jury verdict on a "whim," since granting a j.n.o.v. requires finding that a rational jury could not have reached the verdict that it did on the available evidence, and is exercised only in clear cases of a jury's overreaching. It is never invoked lightly.

[NoZed Avenger]

I have a new strategy for you, Dustin:

Set fire to the internet as a diversion, and while everyone runs to save the porn sites, you can slip out the back.

It can't work any worse than your current plan.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

I have a new strategy for you, Dustin:

Set fire to the internet as a diversion, and while everyone runs to save the porn sites, you can slip out the back.

It can't work any worse than your current plan.



My current plan is to expose people who use petty insults and absurd logical fallacies. I think that plan is working just fine as is.

[RandFan]

By your logic then an Astronomer who claims the Earth is moving in a square orbit has more validity than I who claims it's orbit is more elliptical, Just by the fact that the person is an expert in the field relating to the claim being made?

You're kidding, Right? Dustin, it's true that an expert can be wrong about something within their field of expertise. However, it is not considered a fallacy to appeal to an authority of someone who is an expert in their field on matters pertaining to that field.

Argumentum ad verecundiam (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#authority)


The Appeal to Authority uses admiration of a famous person to try and win support for an assertion. For example:"Isaac Newton (http://wwwcn.cern.ch/~mcnab/n/) was a genius and he believed in God."This line of argument isn't always completely bogus when used in an inductive argument; for example, it may be relevant to refer to a widely-regarded authority in a particular field, if you're discussing that subject. For example, we can distinguish quite clearly between:"Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation"

and"Penrose (http://www.worldofescher.com/misc/penrose.html) has concluded that it is impossible to build an intelligent computer"
Hawking is a physicist, and so we can reasonably expect his opinions on black hole radiation to be informed. Penrose is a mathematician, so it is questionable whether he is well-qualified to speak on the subject of machine intelligence. Dustin, stop digging.

[RandFan]

My current plan is to expose people who use petty insults and absurd logical fallacies. I think that plan is working just fine as is.(emphasis mine) I think we have found the source of the problem. Question your assumptions.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Still digging.

There's even a smilie for that: :dig:

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Dustin, it's true that an expert can be wrong about something within their field of expertise. However, it is not considered a fallacy to appeal to an authority of someone who is an expert in their field on matters pertaining to that field.

Dustin, stop digging.



If the so called "expert" has some knowledge of something then they shouldn't have a problem PROVING it.

Saying "Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation therefor they give off radiation!" isn't an argument but a fallacy.

What should be said is ""Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation and here is the evidence he came up with supporting this claim...."

[AmateurScientist]

Excellent use of the quasi-obscure reference. Oddly, just last night I was contemplating going as Ignatius J. Reilly for Halloween this year.

Beat me to it. I agree that Suddenly's reference was terrific. It's probably my favorite novel. I have purchased it twice and loaned it out twice now. The second person has failed to return it and has moved out of town. You would think I would learn. I was just trying to share the brilliance of Mr. Toole's masterpiece.

Time to get out my Big Chief tablet and get to work.

AS

[Suddenly]

I posted my previous post at 11:30 A.M. my time. This post appeared at 11:40 A.M. Ten minutes to not only read my post, but to respond. Yet you claim others do not read your posts.

You're confused again. You can't say that "Lawyers are more likely to have a correct premise therefore their arguments are better ipso facto". This is a fallacy.

What fallacy?

Each argument stands alone. Lawyers may or may not be more likely to have correct premises. It's totally irrelevant. Their likelihood to have a correct premise has absolutely no bearing on the debate itself.

So you are claiming that if there is a 90% likelyhood that premise A leading to conclusion C is correct, and a 10% chance that premise Not A leading to conclusion Not C is correct, that this is not relevant in determining the more likely conclusion.

This is quite silly.



The only thing that has bearing on the debate is the argument being presented, NOT the presenter.

An argument is no better than the premises. The identity of the presenter is, as you say, irrelevant. The identity of the person is only relevant if: a) that person is the person identifying the premises, and b) that person has some experience, education, or the like that makes it more likely that his premises are correctly stated.



By your logic then an Astronomer who claims the Earth is moving in a square orbit has more validity than I who claims it's orbit is more elliptical, Just by the fact that the person is an expert in the field relating to the claim being made?

You're kidding, Right?

You make the classic error of assuming an unlikely result and using same to argue against the stated probablility of a result. The odds are 51-1 against you selecting an ace of spades out of a deck. In effect you are assuming you select the ace of spades and then claiming the odds are meaningless to someone later selecting a random card. Assuming a particular result does nothing to change the probability of that result.

If you are arguing to a person totally innocent of astronomy, that person is better served by listening to a person with demonstrated experience in the field when deciding which premise is correct. Those premises are more likely to be correct, especially if the expert presents further evidence and there are other experts that concur.

In effect, you are also claiming the opposite. That if the astronomer claims an elliptical orbit and you claim a circular orbit, that an innocent observer is no better served by choosing the more educated and experienced claimant.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

What fallacy?

Appeal to authority.

So you are claiming that if there is a 90% likelyhood that premise A leading to conclusion C is correct, and a 10% chance that premise Not A leading to conclusion Not C is correct, that this is not relevant in determining the more likely conclusion.

It's impossible to know the likelyhood of the premise being correct or not. Only the actual argument presented can tell.



An argument is no better than the premises. The identity of the presenter is, as you say, irrelevant. The identity of the person is only relevant if: a) that person is the person identifying the premises, and b) that person has some experience, education, or the like that makes it more likely that his premises are correctly stated.

Wrong and Wrong. The identity of a person making a claim is ONLY relevant if that person has no proof of the claim and the only thing we have to go on is the persons word. Then his credibility would come into play. No other time.

You make the classic error of assuming an unlikely result and using same to argue against the stated probablility of a result. The odds are 51-1 against you selecting an ace of spades out of a deck. In effect you are assuming you select the ace of spades and then claiming the odds are meaningless to someone later selecting a random card. Assuming a particular result does nothing to change the probability of that result.


See what I said above about the probability of an argument.


If you are arguing to a person totally innocent of astronomy, that person is better served by listening to a person with demonstrated experience in the field when deciding which premise is correct. Those premises are more likely to be correct, especially if the expert presents further evidence and there are other experts that concur.

The premise can only be shown to be correct in the light of evidence. No other way. Not appeals to authority or credibility.


In effect, you are also claiming the opposite. That if the astronomer claims an elliptical orbit and you claim a circular orbit, that an innocent observer is no better served by choosing the more educated and experienced claimant.


An innocent observer needs to listen to the argument of BOTH people and then making a decision based on the evidence presented. In the case of the one presenting the argument for an elliptical orbit the evidence would be overwhelming regardless of the persons credibility.

[toddjh]

Dustin, they are right and you are wrong. It has nothing to do with the fact that some of them are lawyers (although I'm sure their legal experience is part of the reason they are knowledgable on the subject).

You've clearly misunderstood the issues. You speak of a judge overriding a jury verdict, but there wasn't even a jury involved in this case. You also speak of a man being innocent and unable to prove it, yet that also is clearly not the case here, as forty-plus appeals have shown. He's had many chances to convince other judges that his cover story makes sense, and he's been shot down every time.

There are really only two options. Either the guy's story really is that laughable, or else there's a secret cabal of judges conspiring to keep him behind bars for reasons unknown (though no doubt nefarious). I don't think I have to tell you which one requires extraordinary evidence.

Judges don't have too much power. They don't have the authority to override jury verdicts, except in very limited situations. They can jail someone for contempt, but that person does have recourse.

Please accept these facts and acknowledge that you were simply mistaken. It happens. If you just owned up to it, no one would think less of you.

[Suddenly]

If the so called "expert" has some knowledge of something then they shouldn't have a problem PROVING it.

Saying "Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation therefor they give off radiation!" isn't an argument but a fallacy.

What should be said is ""Hawking has concluded that black holes give off radiation and here is the evidence he came up with supporting this claim...."

Which, coming back full circle, is exactly what judges do. They write opinion orders laying out the law and facts they use to reach the stated conclusion.

This has happened more than once in the case being discussed.

In fact, just to jam the point home:

Here is the pdf file of one of them. (http://vls.law.villanova.edu/locator/3d/Dec2002a/021173.pdf)

Another. (http://www.superior.court.state.pa.us/Opinions/s30035_03.pdf#search=%22chadwick%20contempt%20penn sylvania%20case%22)

There are more... but why bother.

[Dustin Kesselberg]

You've clearly misunderstood the issues. You speak of a judge overriding a jury verdict, but there wasn't even a jury involved in this case.

If you'd of read my posts you would of seen that my references to a jury had absolutely nothing to do with this case.



Please accept these facts and acknowledge that you were simply mistaken. It happens. If you just owned up to it, no one would think less of you.

When I am wrong I admit it. When i'm not I don't.

[RandFan]

If the so called "expert" has some knowledge of something then they shouldn't have a problem PROVING it. And they don't. They are simply saying that given their background and education they are more qualified to speak to the issue than you. That's it. That's all. You are still digging.

[Deus Ex Machina]

Surely if he says he doesn't have the money, and the court says he does, the burden of proof should be on the court?

Actually you have it the wrong way round, I think. First of all the only thing I know about the case is the CNN report - just that. I have no idea of the ins and outs of this case.

The problem for the incarceree is that he sent money abroad after a civil action was started. He may well have had a legitimate reason for doing so. But he would have to prove a) That it was a legitimate expense and b) that he was not just offshoring it. Merely saying it is no "proof" . AS the article points out - he is a lawyer, making such a step without having it documented to a fare-thee-well is dumb.

So the onus is on him to prove that the money was sent to settle a legitimate debt and that he has no control over it. The money existed, it was a part of an estate in civil dispute. If he sent it overseas then the burden is on him, not the court.

[marksman]

In a vain attempt to get this discussion back on track, I will attempt to respond to Dustin's arguments with respect to the case at hand and not discuss definitions of fallacies and name-calling. It is my hope that Dustin will reconsider his opinions based on the facts I intend to provide him.

Maybe he's telling the truth and he's being kept in Jail for nothing?
According to the article cited in the original post, that possibility has been now examined by "a dozen pleas to the Delaware County courts, nine to state appeals courts, nine to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 12 to federal courts, two of those to the U.S. Supreme Court." Not once has any tribunal to examine the evidence believed that he is telling the truth. Not one of these cases is even mentioned as having a dissent. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has seven members. The Pennsylvania appellate court has 19 members. The Third Circuit federal Court sits in three-member panels (and it is unclear how many of those three-member panels he has been before). He has submitted his please to a dozen Delaware Cournty courts. The US Supreme Court has nine members. Although it is plausible that a judge could make errors, what do you think is the likelihood that more than 51 judges with multiple opportunities to review his pleas would all make that same mistake?

The chance seem so remote as to be virtually nil. Certainly the likelihood that they got the decision correct far outweighs the likelihood that they got it wrong.

The legal system should be changed so the court has to PROVE he has stashed the money away somewhere and not just on the whim of one single judge.
I hope you now see that his imprisonment is not the "whim of one single judge" but rather the considered decision of more than 50 judges in more than six different courts, many of whom have had multiple opportunities to review his testimony and evidence.

Moreover, in Pennsylvania, the initial burden to demonstrate his possession of the money is on his wife, who, according to the 50+ judges who have examined the evidence, found that she sustained that burden of proof. The burden then shifts ot the husband to prove that he no longer possesses the money. Every court to examine the evidence has found that the huband failed to sustain his burden.

Judges are triers of fact, not advocates. If we were to put the burden on judges to prove cases, they would cease to be place din an impartial role. I submit to you that it is essential that judges not be turned into advocates, so your proposal that judges "prove" things would be antithetical to the impartial administration of justice.

Your response makes no sense. If Clarsct is telling the truth the it makes sense and I agree with the judge. But if Clarsct is incorrect and the man has no way of actually proving he lost the money for whatever reason or has already tried to prove he lost the money but the judge denied it then I disagree with the judge.
What makes you think that it is impossible for him to prove he lost the money? Is it merely a hypothetical in your mind? According to the article, he claims to have lost the money in an investment scheme. Every investment scheme of which I am aware provides regular statements of account to show what is owed an what the returns on the investment are. Banks can show deposit slips and wire transfers. If his story is accurate, it should be easy to show where the money went.

The only instances I am aware where money can disappear without records is if the money is in cash form and is stolen or destroyed. But he isn't claiming that.

In fact, according to the article, the ex-wife's attorney did find some evidence that the money had been sent to Gibraltar, but without the husband's cooperation it would be impossible to determine where in Gibraltar and under what name. He is not cooperating and has not even attempted to rebut the evidence provided by the ex-wife.

If the court can subpoena the bank records of this man even if they are in another country then why is the burden of proof put on him to prove he's innocent and telling the truth?
As others have stated, and which I will now repeat: if the court does not know the names of the institutions holding the money and the names of the account into which the money was deposited, it cannot locate the money. Only the husband has that information and he will not divulge it. The court has two options: hold him in jail until he divulges the information or release him and allow him to abscond with funds that should be used for his ex-wife's care.

In criminal cases if someone is accused of killing someone else then the burden of proof is on the one making the accusation not the one being accused.

This is how it works in logic as well. The burden of proof is(should be) on the one making the initial claim(the judge).
Actually, the one making the initial claim was the ex-wife and she did sustain her burden by evidencing that the money was sent to Gibraltar.

Maybe he was telling the truth? Where is the proof he wasn't?
The proof is in the documents showing that the money was not invested, but was instead sent to an institution in Gibraltar.

Just because the judge has the 'authority' that doesn't make it right.
True. However, nothing in the article or anything else presented in this thread has indicated the judge erred. His decision has been reviewed numerous times by numerous tribunals. Not a single impartial observer with access to the court record has been critical of the initial judge's decision.

Maybe he doesn't have it.
The evidence presented says otherwise.

But if the man DID provide proof that he lost the money and that the judge simply dismissed it because he didn't believe it then he isn't justified.
First of all, let's correct some terminology. The husband doesn't provide "proof". He provides "evidence." In this case, the wife provided evidence that he ent the money to Gibraltar. He claimed that he invested $5,000 in a shaky investment and lost $2.5 million. He has no documents to support this and provided no evidence.

Also the man might of lost his financial records somehow.
He did not claim to have lost his records.

I'm not arguing that it's 'illegal' I’m arguing that it's unjust and illogical if it's occuring the way I mentioned above where the man has proven or somehow can't prove that he lost the money and the judge won't accept his proof even though it's all he has.
But if you were to read the opriginal article, you would have seen that not to be the case.

Ah, So the freedom of a man is based on what the judge finds to be credible or not?
No, it is based on what more than 50 judges in seven different courts finds to be credible.

If science worked like that we'd be up a river without a paddle!
Actually, the way law works could be considered akin to science in this way. The system of appeals and federal review works as "peer review" much in the way science does. In this case, the judge's findings were reviewed by more than 50 different judges and always found sufficient. In other words, the judg'es findings have survived peer review.

I never made any claims about this specific case other than that the judge must prove what he finds to be true.

Prove to whom? How about a jury? What's the point of a jury if 1 man can ignore their decision? Sort of defeats the purpose.
As others have said, a judge cannot ignore a jury in order to imprison a defendant. So that hypothetical urests on a false assumption.

Moreover, a jury does not hear contempt hearings. Juries are very limited in every system of jurisprudence in which they are implemented. I also see no reason why, in this case, a jury's opinion is needed when more than 50 judges have reviewed the initial judge's decision.


judges in the American legal system have too much power to overrule the decision of the Jury on a whim and that in this specific case there could always be a possibility that the man is telling the truth and is unable to prove that.
No, that is not a possibility based on the facts set forth in the article.

I hope now that this is straightened out, you understand better why Mr. Chadiwck is still in prison.

Review the decisions cited by Suddenly, the propriety of the judge's decision is made even more clear.

The husband claimed to have lost his money in investments in Maison Blanche. But Maison Blanche's own records show they returned most of the money to Mr. Chadwick by, upon Chadwick's instructions, transferring $900,000 to a US bank, the proceeds of which were subsequently withedrawn in cash and disappeared, $1,000,000 in stock certificates that were deposited into a Swiss bank account (which doesn't respond to US subpoenas), and that Maison Blanche didn't receive another $550,000 that Chadwick had allegedly sent to an unidentified English barrister. Only Chadwick can explain what he did with the money he withdrew, where the stock certificates went and who the barrister is. He won't.

[Suddenly]

An innocent observer needs to listen to the argument of BOTH people and then making a decision based on the evidence presented. In the case of the one presenting the argument for an elliptical orbit the evidence would be overwhelming regardless of the persons credibility.

Not if that person is a complete liar, totally ignorant of the subject matter and/or has fraudulent intent. Evidence of this is relevant to determing how seriously that person's claims should be taken.

A background in a field is strong evidence that the person has knowlege in that field. That a person has nothing to sell based on his claims is evidence against fraud. That a person has sixteen convictions for perjury is evidence of being a born liar. There is no fallacy here.

It is this simple.

You commit the following fallacies above:

A strawman in that while I claim a background is evidence that a claim is true, you are arguing against the claim that a background means all claims are true.

Also you argue against the claim that no other views should be heard. No such claim was made. Strawman number two.

[JamesDillon]

Beat me to it. I agree that Suddenly's reference was terrific. It's probably my favorite novel. I have purchased it twice and loaned it out twice now. The second person has failed to return it and has moved out of town. You would think I would learn. I was just trying to share the brilliance of Mr. Toole's masterpiece.

Time to get out my Big Chief tablet and get to work.

AS

I agree; it's an excellent novel, and now that I've thought about it thanks to Suddenly's reference, Dustin is exactly the sort of arrogant pseudo-intellectual that Toole was lampooning.

Of course, even Ignatius had a college education.

[varwoche]

By your logic then an Astronomer who claims the Earth is moving in a square orbit has more validity than I who claims it's orbit is more elliptical, Just by the fact that the person is an expert in the field relating to the claim being made? Not so fast with this orbit business. Are you able to prove via firsthand observation that the earth is not the single stationary object in the center of the universe?

[Ian Osborne]

Actually you have it the wrong way round, I think. First of all the only thing I know about the case is the CNN report - just that. I have no idea of the ins and outs of this case.

The problem for the incarceree is that he sent money abroad after a civil action was started. He may well have had a legitimate reason for doing so. But he would have to prove a) That it was a legitimate expense and b) that he was not just offshoring it. Merely saying it is no "proof" . AS the article points out - he is a lawyer, making such a step without having it documented to a fare-thee-well is dumb.

So the onus is on him to prove that the money was sent to settle a legitimate debt and that he has no control over it. The money existed, it was a part of an estate in civil dispute. If he sent it overseas then the burden is on him, not the court.
I know. I revised my opinion halfway down Page Four! :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

It is my hope that Dustin will reconsider his opinions based on the facts I intend to provide him.

:hb:

[marksman]

I did also acknowledge that it was going to be a "vain attempt." :)

[AmateurScientist]

I agree; it's an excellent novel, and now that I've thought about it thanks to Suddenly's reference, Dustin is exactly the sort of arrogant pseudo-intellectual that Toole was lampooning.

Of course, even Ignatius had a college education.

I suspect that Ignatius would be a far more interesting dinner companion (if you could stomach the grotesque table manners and bodily eruptions) than Dustin. At least Ignatius was colorful and had a sense of style -- a ridiculous style, but style nonetheless. Also, I think Ignatius had a far better sense of wit about him.

AS