Post: #26

If he was in jail for contempt, he was likely in the county lock up. Those can be a crap shoot depending on which one it is. Most PA jails are privately run, and it's well known the private places are much worse than public. And there's not quite as much segregation of the various classes of inmates.

The very nature of incarceration takes a toll on most people physically and mentally. Even short stays can add years of mileage.

Prenups tend to be embellished for tv. You can protect current assets, but it's a lot harder to protect future earnings because that's marital income. Like it or not, marital income is real, and she put up with his shit for many years, and is therefore entitled to a cut.

That guy wasn't just cheap, he was a miser. They are miserable fucks to deal with. It's an extremely potent form of scarcity mindset. And his scarcity mindset was proven when he apparently begged her to come back.

Something else to keep in mind. His case is probably not resolved yet. He's likely on the hook for something. If you're on the hook for settlements, alimony, or child support, you can have your passport revoked. He was in the can for 14 years. He doesn't have a passport.

He's now out of jail which means that he'll be needing more of his hidden money. Good luck. The proper authorities will be on him like stink on shit if he ever has more than few dollars in his pocket. If she outlives him, it'll be game on when he dies.

As a miser, he probably rationalizes his stay in jail as good because he got to save money on food and housing. You do realize the primary meat products in jail are spam, bologna, and maybe chicken once a week?

When your ex has you put in jail, you have lost.

Post: #27

In my opinion any judge who jails someone over "contempt of court" for fourteen years deserves to be drawn and quartered. That's fucking outrageous. I don't care what the offense is.

Post: #28

The guy was jailed because he willfully refused to comply with a lawful order from the bench. If the court cannot enforce its rulings, then the court has no use. That guy was an idiot. He chose to waste 14 years of his life in a jail cell with the dregs of society rather than come off a settlement for his ex. And like it or not, if his wife held up her end of the deal, she's entitled to a cut of the MARITAL assets.

Post: #29

I'll admit I didn't read the story in detail, but I don't remember reading about how he was given a jury trial and convicted of a crime. Did I just miss that?

Post: #30

To add, I'll admit up front I'm not a fancy lawyer man but as far as I can tell, any charge that is going to result in a term of more than six months in prison requires a jury trial. Unless waived by the defendant I suppose. And I can find no evidence that Chadwick was, in fact, given a jury trial.

Cheff v. Schnackenberg, 1966.

Let me guess, this is a "civil" offense so neither the referenced case, nor the Fourth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution apply.

Sounds like a clear case of tyranny via sophistry to me. Do what the judges say or you will be jailed indefinitely with no due process and no recourse.

Post: #31

If the judge's order is lawful and you willfully refuse to comply, then you will face harsh penalties. That guy could have put a stop to his incarceration at any point if he had just complied. If judicial rulings cannot be enforced, then there is no point having courts and a legal system.

Post: #32

I'm sorry, what exactly stopped the judge from charging him with criminal contempt and giving him a jury trial? That's how you enforce orders. Why are you trying to justifying jailing a man for fourteen years with no due process when due process was readily available?

I would think this is stupid as hell if the guy did get a jury trial and still went to jail for fourteen freaking years, but at least that would've been legal. This obviously was not legal, except in the minds of lawyers and judges who think the law exists to do whatever they want it to.

The judge used the force of the state to effectively kidnap and imprison a man for fourteen years unless that man gave in to the ordered coercion. There is no justification available for that.

Post: #33

(04-27-2017 09:07 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  If the judge's order is lawful and you willfully refuse to comply, then you will face harsh penalties. That guy could have put a stop to his incarceration at any point if he had just complied. If judicial rulings cannot be enforced, then there is no point having courts and a legal system.

I have to agree with Weambulance here. A judge's power to "force you to comply" without the intervention of something called a "trial" should not include indefinite imprisonment. What if this man Chadwick did not in fact have the money his wife claimed he did? If that was the case, he was in effect given a prison sentence of 14 years for a crime he did not commit, without the benefit of a trial by jury, even a trial at all!

Now, please do not reply back with "of course he had the money, and he deserved being locked up!" If having the money and lying about it can result in a man being locked in jail for decades, then the fact of having the money has to be proven in a trial by jury. A judge's ability to lock you up for decades should rest on due process, not on the judge's personal whim and "wisdom."

Post: #34

As well, if you're convicted of a crime at least you can appeal. Is there any mechanism for appealing getting chucked in prison for contempt of court?

Some of these judges are absolutely out of control. And the whole premise that if you can only get put in prison for six months, there's no right to a jury trial is a crock of shit. But hey, lawyers and judges gotta grab themselves more power any chance they get.

Post: #35

(04-27-2017 09:45 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

(04-27-2017 09:07 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  If the judge's order is lawful and you willfully refuse to comply, then you will face harsh penalties. That guy could have put a stop to his incarceration at any point if he had just complied. If judicial rulings cannot be enforced, then there is no point having courts and a legal system.

I have to agree with Weambulance here. A judge's power to "force you to comply" without the intervention of something called a "trial" should not include indefinite imprisonment. What if this man Chadwick did not in fact have the money his wife claimed he did? If that was the case, he was in effect given a prison sentence of 14 years for a crime he did not commit, without the benefit of a trial by jury, even a trial at all!

Now, please do not reply back with "of course he had the money, and he deserved being locked up!" If having the money and lying about it can result in a man being locked in jail for decades, then the fact of having the money has to be proven in a trial by jury. A judge's ability to lock you up for decades should rest on due process, not on the judge's personal whim and "wisdom."

So true. The guy cold have easily been swindled by an overseas accountant, and then end up serving a sentence without end for losing his money.

Post: #36

(04-27-2017 11:33 AM)CaptainChardonnay Wrote:  Maybe he was smart enough to have bought SPY ETFs to follow the S&P index. 2.75M Would have grown to around 7.5M today using a yearly return of 7.42%. Divide that by 14 years and he was banking a little under half a million each year to stay in jail. On top of that his wife didn't get a dime. Some guys would be down for that.

Anyone want to check if my math is right:
(2,750,000*1.0742^14)/14 = 535,714 per year

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/SPY/performance?p=SPY

Even if true my reaction is "fuck that". That guy entered jail at 59 and left at 73. He pissed away his last remaining years in jail.

Post: #37

Some very interesting posts there. I'd like to address the "a prenup can be gotten around by a skilled lawyer" part. To a certain extent, this is true. For example, if the prenup contains abusive clauses like "in case of divorce, the wife must give 90% of her assets to the husband", even if signed in front of a notary, it won't be enforced in court.

In everything I do, I always underdisclose my net worth. First, it is no one's business. And second, if you discover that your husband is rich, you're gonna start wanting more money. It's human nature. My money is in Bitcoin, and I convert only when I need it. The prenup contains no clause for alimony and especially specifies that no alimony will ever be paid. It was executed by a notary in front of 2 witnesses.

Here in Thailand, divorce rape cases are extremely rare. Thai laws do not provide any alimony clause (it does for child support, though). And since most men marry virgin brides, the probability of divorce is pretty low. If we divorce, the only thing I will have to pay is child support, although I'm likely to have custody since I'm the earning spouse.

The best thing you can do is like everything, have a safety net with many layers:
1) Marry a virgin, you'll reduce your chances of divorce
2) Make a prenup, you'll reduce your chances of divorce rape if #1 goes wrong
3) Underdisclose your net worth, you'll reduce your payments if #2 goes wrong
4) Keep frame and you'll avoid divorce.