By Ed Oliver
February 2002 

Ken Newell’s ex-wife thought she was very crafty and triumphant when she asked the D.A. last month to dismiss the frivolous charges she had brought against Newell.

She waited until the afternoon before the trial was to start in Brockton District Court. She knew that Newell would have to arrive early on Wednesday morning with his lawyers and witnesses all prepared for a trial.

“We never expected her to show for the trial,” said Newell. “She never does, because she knows she will lose. But what can we do except be there?”

But Catherine Newell is in for a surprise.

Atty. Chester Darling says that justice will triumph in the end when she is sued for malicious abuse of process, along with the police in Holbrook and Brockton.

Meanwhile, it’s true that Catherine Newell has a great deal to be happy about because she did get much of what she wanted.

More Lies

This was the 27th time she had filed false charges against the man. Most observers are unable to understand what is wrong with the courts that they allow this woman, who they diagnosed with mental problems, to continue to torment this man and the two children in this manner.

“Nobody would allow this type of thing to go on anywhere except in our courts,” muses Newell. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

Over the last three years, using similar tactics, she has succeeded in bankrupting him and separating him from his children with spurious charges of violence and stalking, although there has never been any evidence of any wrongdoing by Newell.

Because of gender politics, the police and courts continue to oblige the ex-wife whenever she picks up a phone and wants him arrested, despite a court psychiatric report, which details her problems.

In this latest episode of the Newell saga, he was to go on trial for giving his ex-wife a “penetrating, mean stare” at a visitation center last October. He was thrown in jail for three days based solely on her false accusation.

Because of his ex-wife’s latest false report to police:

Newell was arrested by the Holbrook and Brockton police and had to spend three days in a jail that was blood- and urine-soaked.

He has not been allowed to see his children since October, even on Christmas and on his daughter’s birthday in early February. His daughter, Heather, is 14 years old and his son, Christopher, is 10.

Deprivation of Liberty

Attorney Chester Darling tells Massachusetts News he is going to file suit against the ex-wife and the police for deprivation of Ken Newell’s liberty under color of law, because she filed the frivolous complaint and they failed to investigate it before arresting him.

In this latest case, as in the past, the ex-wife set Newell up to be arrested. On that October day, he arrived at the Brockton visitation center parking lot at the appointed time to pick up his kids for a visit. As he walked toward the fathers-only entrance, the ex-wife deliberately drove into an adjacent parking lot where she was not allowed to be. It was behind a chain-link fence on an adjoining property, right next to the fathers’ parking lot. She sat in the car with the children long enough for him to glance at the car, then she backed away and drove out again.

One can only imagine how embarrassed and stressed the children were as a result.

Later that day, Newell was arrested for violating a restraining order, even though he parked where he was supposed to be parked and the ex-wife drove into the wrong parking lot. The woman knew from previous visits she was supposed to park in the mothers’ lot on another side of the building from the fathers’ lot.

The Restraining Order specifically allowed Newell to go to the visitation center even though he and his wife would be close to each other.  Newell had not violated the order; he was only going to see his children. Also, the visitation center employees had told police that the ex-wife was parked in the wrong place.

Prepared for Trial

Newell, with the help of Atty. Darling, was prepared to go before a jury at Brockton District Court that morning to prove that his ex-wife is playing vicious games with him and his children. If Newell had lost the case, he would face two-and-a-half years in jail, but he was ready to risk it in order to end this sordid, sick game of his ex-wife.

It was expensive. He paid to subpoena 12 witnesses and paid for their mileage He also had two attorneys present in court, and he took time off from work to prepare for it.

On the morning of the trial, Asst. D.A. Julia Lavin told Judge James Dinneen that the ex-wife signed an affidavit the afternoon before, dismissing the charges. None of Newell’s entourage had been notified that day. They only found out when they appeared in  court the following morning.

Many observers say this is an example of the breakdown of professionalism in the courts. It was only a matter of common courtesy for one lawyer to place a call to another lawyer and tell him the case had been pulled. But Asst. Dist. Atty. Lavin does not know the meaning of the word.          

Attorney Darling argued futilely with the judge to put on some sort of presentation or else to dismiss the case with prejudice. This would prevent the D.A. from resurrecting the charges against Newell later on. The D.A. refused and the judge also refused. The judge did agree, however, to note Darling’s objection to dismissing the case.

Ken Newell told Massachusetts News, “I am only guilty of wanting to see my children and to be a father. Someday judges and prosecutors will open their eyes to cases like mine, and put a stop to the frivolous abuse of the courts. Presently, the system works for the guilty and hurts the innocent. What is right is wrong, and what is wrong is right.”

He says that the only thing that keeps him going is his deep Christian faith.