5 ms·

It does seem unconditional to hold someone for 5 years without sentencing him. Seems fishy

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
Especially for $2m in coins? Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it’s damaging to our legal system. It’s like a petty parent trying to punish a toddler for not eating their veggies by sending them to their room for a year.
- xibalba 6y ago
  A closer reading of the article is in order: > 161 investors who paid Thompson $12.7 million to find the ship, never saw any proceeds and finally sued > a different federal judge ordered Thompson to appear in court to disclose the coins' whereabouts. Instead, Thompson fled to Florida > [Thompson]'s previously said, without providing details, that the coins were turned over to a trust in Belize. > a federal appeals court last year rejected Thompson's argument that that law [18 month limit] applies to him. > Thompson hasn't just refused to answer questions ... He's also violated the requirement that he "assist" the parties by refusing to execute a limited power of attorney to allow that Belizean trust to be examined, as required under his plea deal. > He would be out of prison by now if he had simply complied with his plea agreement This guy is a big-time thief and a jerk. The courts are functioning just fine.
- polartx 6y ago
  “It’s only $n dollars, is that worth a mans life?!?” I dunno, let’s ask that man?
- wahern 6y ago
  It's not punishment. This is civil contempt, not criminal, and can persist only so long as the court is confident of the person's capability to cooperate. As the article mentions, he refuses to even execute a limited power of attorney so authorities can follow up on his claim that he turned over the coins to a Belizean trust. In 2009 a bitter divorcee, H. Beatty Chadwick, was released after 14 years (sic!) of confinement. He was eventually released when another judge decided continued confinement was futile. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html But note that the confinement had been reviewed by other courts several times, and every time they agreed that the guy was capable of cooperating. And all it takes is a single judge to decide to end the confinement, not the original judge. Note that these articles never give the full story, and because of that people get the impression that courts are simply relying on mere opinion and conjecture as to whether the person is capable of complying with their order. Here's one of the appellate courts decisions in the Chadwick case, https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka, which has more details; and a subsequent SCOTUS opinion reciting the same facts, https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka-3 https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka-3 Again, the point of the confinement isn't just the amount of money at stake, and it's certainly not about retribution. It's that if everybody thought they could defy court orders this way (e.g. decide that $2.5 million is worth 18 months confinement) then courts would have diminished powers to vindicate other people's rights. I understand people's fear of this kind of state-sanctioned power, but imagine how much more fearful people would be if courts were toothless and victims resorted to mafia-style coercion. The choice here isn't some anarchist utopia vs a dystopian state; it's a choice between the rule of law (which will never be perfect), and extrajudicial enforcers. This is especially true when we're talking about the kind of money that's at stake in these cases. Poor people resort to street justice all the time, for better or worse. But when millionaires start doing it, that's how you get a collapsed state. And ask anyone who lives in a collapsed state how safe they feel.
- bdowling 6y ago
  > Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it’s damaging to our legal system. Agreed. The court is supposed to impartially apply the law. Long-term imprisonment for contempt when a party is defiant makes the court seem capricious or vindictive. That undermines the court's appearance of impartiality and erodes public trust in the courts. A more humane solution in this case might be to release him and surveil him for as long as it takes to recover the gold. Once the gold is recovered, bill him for the cost of his surveillance.
  - eesmith 6y ago
    Given his history of subterfuge to avoid being caught by the authorities, and the likelihood that he has access to millions of dollars in Belize, the risk that he would try to escape the country is rather high.

Especially for $2m in coins? Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it’s damaging to our legal system. It’s like a petty parent trying to punish a toddler for not eating their veggies by sending them to their room for a year.

xibalba 6y ago
A closer reading of the article is in order: > 161 investors who paid Thompson $12.7 million to find the ship, never saw any proceeds and finally sued > a different federal judge ordered Thompson to appear in court to disclose the coins' whereabouts. Instead, Thompson fled to Florida > [Thompson]'s previously said, without providing details, that the coins were turned over to a trust in Belize. > a federal appeals court last year rejected Thompson's argument that that law [18 month limit] applies to him. > Thompson hasn't just refused to answer questions ... He's also violated the requirement that he "assist" the parties by refusing to execute a limited power of attorney to allow that Belizean trust to be examined, as required under his plea deal. > He would be out of prison by now if he had simply complied with his plea agreement This guy is a big-time thief and a jerk. The courts are functioning just fine.
polartx 6y ago
“It’s only $n dollars, is that worth a mans life?!?” I dunno, let’s ask that man?
wahern 6y ago
It's not punishment. This is civil contempt, not criminal, and can persist only so long as the court is confident of the person's capability to cooperate. As the article mentions, he refuses to even execute a limited power of attorney so authorities can follow up on his claim that he turned over the coins to a Belizean trust. In 2009 a bitter divorcee, H. Beatty Chadwick, was released after 14 years (sic!) of confinement. He was eventually released when another judge decided continued confinement was futile. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html https://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/us/12contempt.html But note that the confinement had been reviewed by other courts several times, and every time they agreed that the guy was capable of cooperating. And all it takes is a single judge to decide to end the confinement, not the original judge. Note that these articles never give the full story, and because of that people get the impression that courts are simply relying on mere opinion and conjecture as to whether the person is capable of complying with their order. Here's one of the appellate courts decisions in the Chadwick case, https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka, which has more details; and a subsequent SCOTUS opinion reciting the same facts, https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka-3 https://casetext.com/case/chadwick-v-janecka-3 Again, the point of the confinement isn't just the amount of money at stake, and it's certainly not about retribution. It's that if everybody thought they could defy court orders this way (e.g. decide that $2.5 million is worth 18 months confinement) then courts would have diminished powers to vindicate other people's rights. I understand people's fear of this kind of state-sanctioned power, but imagine how much more fearful people would be if courts were toothless and victims resorted to mafia-style coercion. The choice here isn't some anarchist utopia vs a dystopian state; it's a choice between the rule of law (which will never be perfect), and extrajudicial enforcers. This is especially true when we're talking about the kind of money that's at stake in these cases. Poor people resort to street justice all the time, for better or worse. But when millionaires start doing it, that's how you get a collapsed state. And ask anyone who lives in a collapsed state how safe they feel.
bdowling 6y ago
> Not only is this a waste of time and money, but it’s damaging to our legal system. Agreed. The court is supposed to impartially apply the law. Long-term imprisonment for contempt when a party is defiant makes the court seem capricious or vindictive. That undermines the court's appearance of impartiality and erodes public trust in the courts. A more humane solution in this case might be to release him and surveil him for as long as it takes to recover the gold. Once the gold is recovered, bill him for the cost of his surveillance.
- eesmith 6y ago
  Given his history of subterfuge to avoid being caught by the authorities, and the likelihood that he has access to millions of dollars in Belize, the risk that he would try to escape the country is rather high.