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

DanishDynamite · 17th September 2006, 10:18 AM

Just read this story 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 · 17th September 2006, 10:23 AM

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

Quote:

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 · 17th September 2006, 11:00 AM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

Just read this story 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 · 17th September 2006, 11:10 AM

Originally Posted by fuelair

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by fuelair

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:23 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:26 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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.

Quote:

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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]

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!!!

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:00 PM

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

Apparently this isn't the case in the great freedom country, known currently as the USA.

The Central Scrutinizer · 17th September 2006, 05:05 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

"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 · 17th September 2006, 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Incorrect.

Are you purposefully trying to not understand this?

No.

Are you drunk?

DanishDynamite · 17th September 2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:19 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

No.

Are you drunk?

No. Are you?

DanishDynamite · 17th September 2006, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Yep.

OK.

DanishDynamite · 17th September 2006, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

No. Are you?

No.

DanishDynamite · 17th September 2006, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by AmateurScientist

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:32 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by DanishDynamite

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 · 17th September 2006, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by WildCat

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

Truer words were never spoken.

AS

AmateurScientist · 17th September 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Beerina

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

17th September 2006, 10:18 AM	#1
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	11 years in jail so far..for contempt of court! Just read this story 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?

17th September 2006, 10:23 AM	#2
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	Yes, it's insane! Who has sex exclusively at 7:30am on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Quote: 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.
Katana Illuminator Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 4,894	__________________ "I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock "The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit) "Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive StopSylviaBrowne

17th September 2006, 11:00 AM	#3
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite Just read this story 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.
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,900

17th September 2006, 04:26 PM	#7
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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
	Last edited by AmateurScientist; 17th September 2006 at 05:41 PM.

17th September 2006, 04:48 PM	#11
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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. Quote: 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
	Last edited by AmateurScientist; 17th September 2006 at 04:51 PM.

17th September 2006, 11:10 AM	#4
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by fuelair 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"?

17th September 2006, 04:15 PM	#5
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by fuelair 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

17th September 2006, 04:23 PM	#6
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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?

17th September 2006, 04:31 PM	#8
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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

17th September 2006, 04:39 PM	#9
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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.

17th September 2006, 04:42 PM	#10
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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?

17th September 2006, 04:50 PM	#12
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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

17th September 2006, 04:55 PM	#13
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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] 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!!! Quote: 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? Quote: 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.

17th September 2006, 05:00 PM	#14
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	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?
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

17th September 2006, 05:03 PM	#15
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by 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? Apparently this isn't the case in the great freedom country, known currently as the USA.

17th September 2006, 05:05 PM	#16
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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".
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th September 2006, 05:08 PM	#17
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th September 2006, 05:10 PM	#18
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th September 2006, 05:12 PM	#19
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer "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.

17th September 2006, 05:13 PM	#20
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite He is being held in custody because the DA thinks he's guilty of something. Incorrect. Are you purposefully trying to not understand this?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th September 2006, 05:14 PM	#21
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer 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.

17th September 2006, 05:15 PM	#22
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,420	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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.

17th September 2006, 05:15 PM	#23
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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.

17th September 2006, 05:17 PM	#25
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by Rob Lister Yep. Must admit I thought you had a sense of honor. And even, perhaps, a sense of right and wrong. Oh well.

17th September 2006, 05:19 PM	#27
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Pither Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: The White Zone Posts: 42,266	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite No. Are you drunk? No. Are you?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

17th September 2006, 05:21 PM	#28
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Yep. OK.

17th September 2006, 05:22 PM	#29
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer No. Are you? No.

17th September 2006, 05:23 PM	#30
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle 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.

17th September 2006, 05:32 PM	#31
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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.

17th September 2006, 05:36 PM	#32
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Originally Posted by WildCat 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.

17th September 2006, 06:01 PM	#33
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by DanishDynamite 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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. Quote: 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

17th September 2006, 06:15 PM	#34
AmateurScientist JREF Kid Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 5,325	Originally Posted by 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? 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

17th September 2006, 06:30 PM	#35
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	Originally Posted by AmateurScientist 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.

17th September 2006, 06:32 PM	#36
Rob Lister Suspended Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 8,523	Originally Posted by WildCat 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.

17th September 2006, 06:42 PM	#37
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	Originally Posted by Rob Lister 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.