|
‘Overworked’ Court Prepared for
‘Important’ Trial
February 2002
|
Although this picture
story will appear to the average person too ridiculous to
be true, we are sad to report that this is a true story.
It shows how our “overworked”
judges are spending their valuable time.
It demonstrates why the Chief
Justice of the Quincy court, Mark Coven, who is one of the
worst offenders, wrote in the Boston Globe last summer that
he and the other judges are “burned out.”
He made that statement after
one of his judges left the court. He said her departure was
“an indictment of the entire [court] system, emblematic of
a system that has failed to retain the energy, excitement,
and commitment of one of its best and brightest.”
We are unable to resist sarcasm
when writing about this case and revealing the total lack
of common sense in our judges. This shows the abuse they are
allowing to occur in their, and our, courts.
|
|
“Crime Scene” – Crime of “staring”
allegedly occurred outside Visitation Center in Brockton at
8:43 a.m., Saturday, October 13, 2001. The crime is alleged
to have occurred while children were arriving for visits with
their fathers.
Mother Wanted to “Trap” Father – In order to avoid
all contact with the fathers, the mothers must park either
on the street or on the left side of the building (where
the cars are visible). This mother had been to the Center
many times and knew the rules. Nevertheless, she drove up
the driveway on the opposite side of the Center which
belongs to the property next door.
Drove Up Wrong Driveway, On Purpose – The mother drove
up this driveway because she was hoping to come in contact
with the father.
Drove to Back of Building – Mother drove all the way to
the back of the wrong driveway, then turned her car to
face the chain link fence where she knew the unsuspecting
father would be walking.
Appeared Here – Mother suddenly drove up on the other side
of the fence, where the father is pointing. She parked facing
him as he was heading to the back door to enter with another
father. Mother told police that he “walked over to the chain-link
fence, put his hands in his pockets, leaned back and stared
at her.” This scenario is highly doubtful when one looks at
the picture and it also raises the obvious question, “Even
if that were true, why didn’t you just drive away before he
was able to walk over?” She says, “It was a penetrating, mean
looking stare.”
Father Enters Here – Father points to door in the back of
the building that he must enter before 9 a.m. in order to
see his children. Mothers are not allowed to arrive before
9 a.m. so that there will be no contact with fathers. This
mother was given special permission to arrive early at the
Center. No one will say why that was so, although it appears
that the owner of the Center, Patricia S. Kelleher, was a
co-conspirator in this plan to trap the father and put him
in jail. Kelleher does not like the father because he has
never let her bully him as she does most men.
Father’s Diagram – Father made
this diagram of the “crime scene.” His children were not allowed
to see him that day. He had to wait at the Center until the
mother left with the children. He has not been allowed to
see them since the crime occurred. This decision to separate
his children from him was not made by a judge, but by the
woman who owns the visiting center, Pat Kelleher.
|
Questions that Lawyers Are
Asking
Some questions that lawyers
are privately asking are:
Why did Asst. Dist. Atty. Julia Lavin continue this farce? Is she
another of those women who hate all men?
Doesn’t Julia Lavin know that Brockton police officer Brenda Marrero
reported that Visiting Center employees told her the mother parked
in the wrong lot?
Was Julia Lavin planning on forcing the police officer to change
her story about what happened at 8:43 a.m. on October 13, 2001 at
the Brockton Family and Community Resources?
Or did Julia Lavin know all the time that a trial would not be held?
Did she collude with the woman?
Was the arresting officer really serious when she wrote in her Report
that the father was required by court order to “stay away 100 yards”
from the mother. It was the mother who penetrated the space where
he was ordered to be. It was impossible for him to retreat 100 yards.
And the order specifically excluded the Visitation Center from its
terms.
Did Julia Lavin plan to force the two employees of the Visiting
Center to change their statements that 1) the mother parked in the
wrong lot and 2) faced the fathers’ entrance?
Did Julia Lavin really plan to call the impressionable 14-year-old
Newell daughter to testify in the case?
Did the judge who handled the arraignment, Richard D. Savignano,
ever bother to discover what the Dedham court’s own doctors said
about the mental condition of the mother and that their tests “suggest
an individual who is often viewed as immature, self-centered and
self-indulgent.” (See sidebar) If the judges in the Brockton District
Court are to rubberstamp everything that comes before them, can’t
we replace them with computers? Was it really necessary for Judge
Savignano to attend Harvard Law School to be a rubberstamp?
Doesn’t Julia Lavin understand that this “immature, self-centered
and self-indulgent” woman was striving for more attention when she
purposefully drove up the wrong driveway?
Doesn’t Julia Lavin understand that this “immature, self-centered
and self-indulgent” person had the first trial of this case (which
was scheduled in December) postponed not because of “medical reasons”
as she claimed, but because she wants to keep this tremendous burden
on her former husband and stop him from seeing his children? This
helps to satisfy the “attention and sympathy from others” that the
court’s doctors said she is seeking.
The owner of the Visitation Center, Patricia S. Kelleher, has a
long history with the Newells. Why does she earn her living by harassing
men? Is this just a good living for her or is there more involved?
She ran a “batterer’s intervention program” which Ken Newell was
forced to attend in March 1999 – even though he has never been a
batterer. In her analysis of him for DSS, she recommended that he
was an “appropriate referral to complete a state certified batterer’s
program.” This meant that she would get more money from DSS. She
wrote, “I would consider Mr. Newell a danger to his former partner.”
(Notice that no one in the
system recognizes marriage. Husbands are forced to use the word
“partner” to refer to their wives when they are in these compulsory
programs.)
Are all Massachusetts courts run at this level of incompetence and
lack of common sense?
Sidebar:
‘Psychological Problems’ of Mother
Their own doctors at the Dedham
Probate Court said that this mother has “numerous psychological
problems.”
Here is their summary.
“Ms. Newell’s degree of stress
and depression raise genuine concern about her safety should she
find herself in more emotionally charged situations.” At such times,
“She is prone to act impulsively and has an extremely psychologically
immature manner of coping with situations.”
“Ms. Newell’s significant
elevations on scale 4 and 6 (Psychopathic Deviate and Paranoia)
suggest an individual who is often viewed as immature, self-centered
and self-indulgent. They typically make excessive and unrealistic
demands on relationships. Individuals with this pattern often seek
attention and sympathy from others. They may tend to be suspicious
of others and resentful of demands made on them.
“Relationship problems are
characteristic of their psychological conflicts, especially those
involving members of the opposite sex. They are often viewed as
irritable, sullen, argumentative, and resentful of authority.”
It says further tests were
needed to rule out organic impairment. Other possibilities were
substance abuse (for which she tested positive, it says) or more
serious emotional disturbance. The test called for a re-evaluation
of her current treatment regimen based on the severity of her level
of depression and stress.
The test results say clinical
elevations were also noted on scales 1, 2 and 3 (Hypochondriasis,
Depression, and Hysteria) and mild elevations on scales 7 and 8
(Psychastenia and Schizophrenia).
Ms. Newell is still receiving
full social security benefits in 2002, apparently because she is
still unable to work due to her psychological problems.
In
contrast, Ken Newell’s test results revealed mild depression due
to his family and legal circumstances but said he was coping fairly
well with stress. It said further there was “no evidence of a disturbance
in his thought processes.” The report concluded that Newell “might
benefit at this time of great upheaval in his life” from therapy.
Sidebar:
Will Troops in Afghanistan Be Treated Better than this Vietnam Vet?
When Ken Newell is questioned
in court, his former wife’s attorney, Pauline Quirion, has always
used his service in Vietnam as a weapon against him.
Newell was drafted into the
Army at age 19 in 1967. He did not volunteer to go. He does not
like to kill people.
He was put in charge of five
trucks which would travel only in the daytime, because it was much
too dangerous at night, to get supplies for his division. After
he returned from one journey through the jungles, he was told to
get some paperwork because he was being promoted to sergeant. He
reported to a new lieutenant who had just arrived from the states.
The officer complained that Newell had shortened the sleeves on
his shirt to make it cooler, his boots still had jungle mud on them
and his pants were not bloused. He also was carrying a private pistol
(which he had bought in the states and had with him during his entire
tour in Vietnam) because it would give him much faster protection
than a bulky carbine or rifle if he were attacked while in the truck.
The officer gave him an Article
15 for those petty “violations.”
Atty. Quirion always made
this an important part of her attacks against Newell. She tried
to paint him as a dangerous person who was punished for carrying
a weapon he was not supposed to have. During the last trial, she
told the judge that a DSS worker had told her about a photo the
ex-wife had found in her car of Newell in Vietnam holding a gun.
“She’s in genuine fear of
him,” she told the judge.
When this new generation of
19-year-old boys come back, this time from Afghanistan, will they
be treated in our courts any better than the boys that the liberals
sent to Vietnam?
|
