Judge frees inmate after record term for delinquent alimony

Enough said.

David A. DeLong

Yeah, if a woman was held in contempt would it amount anywhere near 14 f***ing years?

Still this is great news. Too bad the taxpayers had to foot the bill for incarcerating an innocent man who would have contributed much to society during those stolen 14 years.

If his ex needed money that bad maybe she should have gotten a damned job?

manonthestreet

I wish I had this man's strength. It just makes me feel so small to hear about this man's determination. But how I do loath judges and wives - more than I can ever really say.

Are they going to monitor this guy's accounts or spending to 'make sure' he doesn't have the money he claimed not to have? And then send him back to jail if he buys a double whopper instead of a hamburger?
-ax

How much time does a woman serve for the premeditated murder of her husband?

manonthestreet

People in the USA are always boasting that they are a free country. But in a free country the individual should have the right to own property. This is clearly not so in America. If a man is married his right to own property is void and it is the state that decides what property he may or may not keep. There is no such thing as private property for a married man.

I think Bloody Mary Winkler of Tennessee served around 120 days for shooting her sleeping pastor husband in the back with a shotgun.

But of course one always has to consider just what did he do to cause her to take such drastic action.

I just hope he did stash the cash in some offshore account that has been accumulating interest all these years. He deserves every damned penny!

Just think of all the wasted tax dollars spent to keep him in jail and the tax revenue he would have contributed as a corporate lawyer. Misandry is expensive as it should be and why it should be avoided.

Under our antiquated constitution we have the right to address this kind of problem within our own country. We should hold our courts in contempt. The longer we play their game the longer we suffer, period. I have found that it always easier to complain using anothers name, to be careful with what is said in public so as not to draw to much attention. I have never had that problem myself as I have always followed my feelings. Easy, no. Comfortable, no. Productive, that may be a question that will be answered after I am gone. We are all responsible for the mess that we leave our children. Perhaps we should quit thinking about the individual "me" and start thinking of the collective "we". Self sacrifice seems to be the key in any social change. There have to be enough people tired of being abused that they collectively stand, perhaps revolt. I do know that if we continue to embrace this joke of society that the majority will continue to suffer, just read history as it does repeat it self. Our current acts of defiance remind me of helpless children standing up before abusive parents seeking permission to complain. Oh hell, kick em in the shins and run!

David A. DeLong

To me it sounds like she is a simple woman that married a jerk and she is not counting on any money. While she was married she had to maintain and clean the house, clean the pool, mow 3.5 acres of lawn and cook lavish dinners every night, as well as ration the toilet paper. It sounds like she worked very hard and has nothing to show for it. I don't think anyone came out a winner.

You can read a little more on the case here:

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/Business/story?id=712687&page=1

... it still wouldn't justify a 14-year stint in jail for contempt. I'd also like to point out that he spent that time in jail solely by order of a judge. Was there a trial for contempt? No. He simply stated that some amt. of money attributed to his possession was not in fact in his possession and so he had couldn't produce it. The judge didn't believe him so locked him up for 14 years.

Think of that: 14 years. Because a judge *thinks* you're lying and so for that reason has the power to imprison you for 14 years. Arguably, these 14 years were significant to him in ways greater than those of us under a certain age can't comprehend. The last part of his life that could be truly enjoyable he spent instead in jail: without a trial, presumed guilty, over what, a divorce case? With no evidence that he 1) lied or 2) intended to lie. As for what his ex-wife said about him in the article, well, maybe it's true, maybe not. People say all kinds of things when they smell blood int he water (ie, money). This man is presumed to be the "bad one" in this drama (of course), because he is 1) male and 2) older than his ex-wife. Has anyone heard HIS side of the story of life at home? I haven't.

This may well be the worst case of abuse of the judicial power to imprison for contempt in the history of the United States.

OK Kris, just a thought here. The woman lived in a mansion, had to work for a living, it doesn't say she was abused, other than she had to be productive. Now on the other hand the man spent 14 years of his life in jail, without being convicted of anything. The woman continued on with her life as if nothing had happened. The only thing is she didn't get rich, poor baby. Just because a woman has a vagina doesn't entitle her to money. Now if she was an actual prostitute and could prove that by marrying Beatty that she actually lost money by giving up her chosen profession, then and only then would it make any sense at all. The only victim in this scenerio is the man that lost 14 years of his life due to a corrupt system that sees men as less than equal in the eyes of the law. To view it any other way is to agree with our current system, and that means that you are part of the problem, and not the solution!

David A. DeLong

could this be anything but insanity.

presonally, i hope he has trillions hidden away.
enough to move to another country and live like a king.

if it were me, i would be looking for some serious payback.
but that would be so wrong.
unlike putting an American in prison w/o a trial on the word
of a crooked lawyer in a robe and a pampered piece of crap.

as the economy goes even more sour, and more and more,
as it is destined to do (tax tax tax tax),
i hope the legal "profession", with all those ethics,
suffer the most.

THAT would be JUSTICE!

I think everyone is entitled to a fair trial. One trial in this matter should be about the divorce and the division of assets based on truth and full disclosure. The other trail should be to see if he is guilty or not of contempt.

To me it seems that she worked to contribute to their lifestyle. She does not seem like a goldigger and seems happier that she is away from this man. (If she were a goldigger, she would have just waited for him to die).

It is not her that put him in jail, but the judge that was angry at him for lying about his assets. I think he should get a trial for his contempt charge, but on the other hand his claim about the real estate investment gone bad is so outrages.

I have been around wealthy people most my life. The smart ones stay wealthy and the dumb ones lose it all. This man is wealthy and smart. The type of investment he described is so dumb that it does not even make sense (a 2.75 million margin call on a 5K investment? It does not even sound legal, but it happens to be overseas!) I have a hard time believing that he really ventured into such an investment, and it seems like all he would have to do is provide a witness to come forward that represents the so called real estate investment firm.

The wife worked hard for 20 years maintaining the home, she may have contributed to the down payment or entered the marriage with her own assets. She could have opted to work at a local grocery store for 20 years and accumulated social security and a pension, but instead she cleaned house, the pool and mowed the lawn for $600 a month in spending money. It would have cost the man much more to hire help

Maybe she was entitled to something, maybe she wasn't; but her divorce trial should have been based on facts about THEIR assets and their relationship.

I assume the beautiful home is long gone, and he wasted 14 years in jail. That is why I said no one came out a winner. Everyone lost.

All I am suggesting is that they each should have got a fair trial.

manonthestreet

'One trial in this matter should be about the divorce and the division of assets based on truth and full disclosure. The other trail should be to see if he is guilty or not of contempt.'

No! Why should a woman be given any of a man's wealth just because she coerced him in to marriage? Let the women be independent and that means not stealing from her husband. One of the point of this website is that we reject feminist law. Women are very keen to argue from history that once husband owned their wives. Even though this is bullshit (though a good idea) they have no problem with thinking themselves the owner of every thing a man has produced by his efforts. After all a woman marries a wallet. Sadly we only learn this fact too late.

Also marriage is in fact a sacrament just like communion so why in earth should the state be involved at all?

> No! Why should a woman be given any of a man's wealth just because she coerced him in to marriage?

You are assuming that all of the wealth was his. I am suggesting that some of the wealth may have been hers. Maybe she owned a home pryor to the marriage and sold it and put the proceeds into the home they lived in. Maybe some furnishings in the home are heirlooms from her family.

Maybe she gave up a career to be with him, or maybe she inherited money and they put it in a joint investment for retirement.

It says that she left with 2 trash bags full of clothes. I assume she enterred the marriage with more than that. Before marriage she must have had a job/career, a place to live (own or rent), vehicle and furnishings.

The bulk of the wealth may be his, but it is likely that she is entitled to some.

I don't know what the facts are in the case, but a fair trial should determine who gets what.

I am newly married, and my husband and I each own a home. We live in my home and are renting his out. We plan on selling his home as it is several hours away and using the money (plus additional funds) to buy a duplex closer to us.

You can see that if we were to divorce after 20 years that things could be complicated.

manonthestreet

My wife brought a vegetable rack and half a pound of butter to the marriage. No I lie. She then brought a lifetime of misery. I can and will have no sympathy for this or any woman. The sexes have no business marrying. It is not what's fair but who wins that is the question. It is no good you trying to convince me otherwise. The only thing left to me is my understanding and I learnt that the hard way. So no matter what you write Kris I know that no women is capable of any thought towards a man other than to feed off him. Women may protest otherwise but remember what E Villiars said - 'women have thoughts and feelings, they are just not the ones they are showing you at the time'.