Eleven-years of prison for divorced man


——————————————————————————–

17 September 2006

Man jailed 11 years in ‘scorched earth’ divorce case

Slight, scholarly and enigmatic, H. Beatty Chadwick is doing this day what he has done for the past 4,093: He is sitting in a county jail outside Philadelphia.

It is a place meant for run-of-the-mill crooks just passing through on their way to comparatively luxurious state prisons. Certainly not for anyone to stay 11 years — not for the central figure in one of the most bizarre divorce battles in American history.

It hinges on a charge of civil contempt designed to force Chadwick to turn over $2.5 million the courts say he hid overseas all those years ago. Except he won’t. Or can’t, depending on whom you believe.

In July 1994, the Delaware County courts ordered the $2.5 million sent back, into an court-controlled account, while the divorce played out.

Momjian showed the courts documentation that Chadwick’s money wound up in Gibraltar, with some of it briefly returning to accounts in the United States, and eventually to Luxembourg and Panama. But that was 10 years ago. Momjian says the cash could be anywhere by now.

Chadwick insisted he couldn’t pay up because the cash was no longer his. A county judge found him in contempt, and on November 2, 1994, he was ordered imprisoned. The deal from the courts: Give up the money and go free.

Only in the Matriarchy could a man be imprisoned for over a decade for not handing over money he earned to hand over to a woman he used to be married to. And, as is invariably the case, she was the one who divorced him.

Technically it seems the court just wants the money in a “court-controlled” account, but that’s only so they can decide how much (most probably most or all) of it can be handed to the wife. I don’t really believe his story that he lost it in some dodgy investment but that doesn’t matter, if he’s lying he’s entitled to do so to protect himself from having the cash stolen from him. But then, in a democracy, isn’t it meant to be innocent until proven guilty? If the government (that annoying Third Party in a marriage) wants to prove he’s really unable to get the money, surely they should have to prove it in a court of law? But wait, that assumes justice is something that applies to men.

Naturally she’s bullshitted that he was abusive to her. Yeah yeah, whatever. Women commonly make false claims of abuse in divorce cases, they’re practically encouraged to in fact, so in the absence of any proof it’s safe to assume they’re lying.

“This is just Beatty to a T,” his ex-wife says. “It’s the biggest tantrum you’ll ever see anyone throw. And he’s real good at throwing tantrums. He can’t — just like he couldn’t let me go — he can’t let a single penny go. It’s his.”

Oh shut the fuck up you worthless blabbering cunt.

What a selfish skank piece of shit, dragging out the old tactic of shaming language, claiming he’s throwing a “tantrum” because he doesn’t want to hand over money that even she admits is “his.”

Imagine if a woman made a fortune, then her husband divorced her, made up loads of claims that his wife abused her, then after she refused to hand over her fortune to her ex-husband she was thrown behind bars (like that would happen! They don’t even go to prison for killing babies.) for eleven-years. There would be shrieking outrage from feminists at the outset, even at the idea that she might have to hand over a penny of “her” money to an ex-husband, let alone going to prison for not doing so.

Staying single is the only way to stay free, literally. As a bachelor who refuses to even co-habit with a woman, you won’t ever face the chance of being imprisoned after false abuse allegations from a wife or co-habiting girlfriend, not handing over a fortune to a court to give over to your ex-wife, or for not being able to pay Child Support you can’t afford to children you can’t see. Sure, even as a bachelor, there’s always prison for not paying Child Support from any bitch who lies about being on the pill, or by false rape allegations whereby it’s her word against yours (and yours is worth shit because you’re a man), so avoiding women in general is the only way to avoid such horrors. And avoiding women in general is becoming a greatly attractive option to more and more men.

In the Matriarchy, marriage is imprisonment for men. Fuck it. Fuck it right off. Stay single.

posted by Duncan Idaho @ 7:46 PM
——————————————————————————–

At 9:07 PM, Viking said…

Not getting married is indeed the best option but don’t count on it staying an option for ever.

In the second century BC speech of the censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus about the law requiring men to marry in order to produce children. According to Livy (Per. 59), in 17 B.C. Augustus read out this speech, which seemed “written for the hour”, in the Senate in support of his own legislation encouraging marriage and childbearing.

If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance; but since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure.

Do you think our societies will not do the same? “The Woman’s Right to Marriage Act of 20??” Johnny, the county match-maker is here to introduce you to your gov’t assigned wife.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:11 PM, unpleasant bitter git said…

To me the real criminal in this case is not the divorced wife, she has moved on with her life and doesn’t seem to care about the money anymore. It’s the court system.

They are the ones who will ignore common sense and do their damnedest to make the man the demon of every divorce case and pursue it to the ends of the earth just to make a point.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:41 AM, mfsob said…

Getting me arrested – in front of our kids, naturally – was one of my ex’s PUBLICLY STATED goals after we separated, because she knew if she could pull that off, I would be completely, totally fucked as far as the final settlement and Family Law Court were concerned.

That’s the way it works in the US today … Family Law Court is accountable to NO ONE, hell, they can even make up the laws as they go along (as some frequently do, for *gag* “the best interests of the child.”

——————————————————————————–

At 4:02 AM, pete said…

The only way to avoid being a prisoner to a woman’s will (in the current legal sense, not in the horrifying time viking just described) is not only to avoid marrying women and avoid co-habiting with them, but also to get a vasectomy. That is literally the only woman-interference-proof method of birth control we have.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:11 AM, John said…

Actually, the money still exists. What he MOST LIKELY did was create a trust offshore to transfer the money to, and have it buy cash generating assets. A standard clause of these trusts is that the money cannot be transfered back out of the trust if the beneficiary ( the husband in this case) is under duress (say being pressured by the court?) And the trust is empowered to move the assets in the event of any attack or discovery of said assets.

One thing that is not generally mentioned in these articles is that ALL offshore jurisdictions will dissolve a trust if the trust is formed in order to commit a fraud ( including hiding assets in a divorce ) However, there is a 2-3 year statute of limitations on this, so that means that the husband created the trust AT LEAST 2 years before his wife filed for divorce. Prescience or prudence? There are lots of reasons to want to move your money offshore.

Why he stuck around to face a judge is beyond me, given the fact that the court knows perfectly well that he cant get the money back out of the trust.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:19 AM, Deepak said…

To viking:

oh no no no no no no no no no NO

Thanks for ruining my sleep for the next week, buddy.

To Duncan, and his other readers:

If the idea of being “trapped” by a manipulative woman into fatherhood is so aversive to you, and you’re absolutely convinced fatherhood is not for you, or just not practical given the low quality of women around you …

… consider vasectomy.

Now, now, gents, uncross your legs and hear me out. It’s not as bad a thing as you might think.

A lot of men in Australasia are having it done quite early. It’s quite cheap and there are very seldom serious complications. I hear your nuts ache like hell for a good week or so afterwards, but I’d consider that a small price to pay. Afterwards, no more little soldiers, but everything else functions perfectly, if you catch my drift.

As a matter of fact, it’s such a simple procedure it’s usually done under a local anesthetic, but you can opt for a full anesthesia if you’d rather not be conscious.

And here’s the real beauty of it: it’s totally undetectable. After you get it done, who says you have to tell anyone? Coming off the pill or pinpricking the condom is suddenly rather ineffective.

One proviso: you have to be sure. It’s often reversible – just don’t count on it.

——————————————————————————–

At 10:51 AM, Christopher in Oregon said…

Amen, brother!

——————————————————————————–

At 11:04 AM, Captain Zarmband said…

You have to realise that the courts system is an industry and works like any other commercial organisation. It sole aim is to generate cash and power for its participants, namely, judges, lawyers and court officials. The idea that justice is available is frankly a joke. This is particularly the case in family court matters where an additional third party enters the fray. This additional participant is the political establishment who use the family courts system to garner female votes. Therefore, the family courts system operates solely for the benefit of power- mad politicians, lawyers, judges, court officials and de facto females.

My advice to men is do not make the mistake of marrying. You will regret it.

——————————————————————————–

At 7:25 PM, phoenix said…

If women only had power in marriage, it wouldn’t be so bad, but they have obscene amounts of power in the workplace as well. You have to walk around on eggshells, and even then there is no guarantee that you won’t face harassment charges on a woman’s whim. It makes work absolutely miserable. Women are never happy themselves, so they insist on everyone else around them being miserable as well.

——————————————————————————–

At 12:13 AM, Anonymous said…

” Not getting married is indeed the best option but don’t count on it staying an option for ever.

In the second century BC speech of the censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus about the law requiring men to marry in order to produce children. According to Livy (Per. 59), in 17 B.C. Augustus read out this speech, which seemed “written for the hour”, in the Senate in support of his own legislation encouraging marriage and childbearing.

…Do you think our societies will not do the same? “The Woman’s Right to Marriage Act of 20??” Johnny, the county match-maker is here to introduce you to your gov’t assigned wife.”

They can try, but I live my life the way I want. Always have, always will.

I am sure they will net some men with laws just as they do with drafts, however, not this one.

No one really has power over me. Like it or not, I WILL die sooner or later so whether I go out in a blaze sooner or fade out later, doesn’t really make whole lot of difference to me.

What does make a difference to me, is simply living by MY rules, and enjoying MY life for as long as I choose to.

FREEDOM over cowardice.

People who die in the bondage of the government, feminism, a “job”, or religion are simply mindless slaves and NOT truly men.

——————————————————————————–

At 2:11 AM, Anonymous said…

” Not getting married is indeed the best option but don’t count on it staying an option for ever.

In the second century BC speech of the censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus about the law requiring men to marry in order to produce children. According to Livy (Per. 59), in 17 B.C. Augustus read out this speech, which seemed “written for the hour”, in the Senate in support of his own legislation encouraging marriage and childbearing.

…Do you think our societies will not do the same? “The Woman’s Right to Marriage Act of 20??” Johnny, the county match-maker is here to introduce you to your gov’t assigned wife.”

They can try, but I live my life the way I want. Always have, always will.

I am sure they will net some men with laws just as they do with drafts, however, not this one. Besides, no one really has power over me. Like it or not, I WILL die sooner or later so whether I go out in a blaze sooner or fade out later, doesn’t really make whole lot of difference to me.

What does make a difference to me, is simply living by MY rules, living by my code of ethics, and enjoying MY life for as long as I choose to.

FREEDOM over cowardice.
FREEDOM over slavery.

People who die in the bondage of the government, feminism or religion are simply slaves – and nothing more.

——————————————————————————–

At 5:38 AM, Masculist Man said…

I’ve gotten a good look at women’s evil side and have been a victim of it as well so I know I will be avoiding their cunt asses.

——————————————————————————–

%d bloggers like this: