
Ken
Newell stands in chains and handcuffs beside his
attorney, Chester Darling, after spending two nights
in the filthy Brockton jail because he wants to see
his children. Many people are now wondering whether he
should have followed the advice of the court
psychologist and deserted the children. |
Ex-Wife
Has Ken Newell Arrested By Holbrook, Brockton Police ... for 27th
Time !
Police
Violate Law by Arresting Without 'Probable Cause'

Plymouth
Police Did Not Arrest
Ken
Newell Attacked Because of Military Service
Ken
Newell’s children are denied visitation
with
father; not by judge but by visitation center
By
Ed Oliver
November 2001
His former wife has mental problems
and has filed 26 frivolous charges of violence against Ken Newell
over the past three years, but the Brockton and Holbrook police
didn't hesitate to arrest him again last month after more spurious
charges came from the former wife.
The police in both towns
know about the false reports that the wife has filed and about the
court's psychiatric report which says she has mental problems.
Newell spent Saturday
and Sunday nights in jail before being released on his own recognizance.
"This is a classic
case of an unlawful arrest where the police had no probable cause
to arrest," said Atty. J. Edward Pawlick, publisher of Massachusetts
News.
He noted that a federal
judge in Boston held last year that a policeman had to carefully
investigate to see whether there was probable cause before arresting
a man who was accused by his wife of violating a restraining order.
"Obviously,
that was not done here by either police department. If they had,
they would have laughed at her. These police and the towns can and
will be sued," said Atty. Pawlick.
|

Newell stands in front
of the Brockton police department where he was kept in a
filthy jail cell for two days even though the police knew
about his wife's mental problems.
|

Newell points to spot
on other side of fence where ex-wife was parked although
she was supposed to be in the front of the building.
|
The federal case last year involved
the City of Lawrence which was settled last month with a cash payment
of $5,000 to the father, who tried the case himself.
Police Violate Their Oath
What caused Ken Newell to be
thrown into a filthy jail cell for two days?
He went to a visitation
center in Brockton where he picks up his children every Thursday
and every other Saturday for visits. On that day, he was told to
arrive at the center fifteen minutes before 9 a.m. and park behind
the building. He then enters the building when an employee opens
the back door and signals him.
The former wife is supposed
to arrive with the children at 9 a.m., park in front of the building
and enter through the front door.
The children get transferred
to a room in the rear of the building to join their father. The
woman is supposed to wait there while Newell leaves with the children.
According to Newell, on
Saturday morning, October 13, he arrived at the visitation center
at twenty minutes to nine. Another gentleman arrived a few minutes
later and they stood waiting in the lot discussing flag stickers
on their trucks.
"Then a girl came
to the back door and opened it, so we had to go in," said Newell.
"As we were walking
up to the door, on my left-hand side, there is another parking lot
about thirty feet away divided from us by a six-foot-high, chain
link, security fence.
My ex-wife pulled into
that parking lot, then all of a sudden backed up fast because she
saw me. Then she stopped. I looked and gave a smile to my daughter.
Then we walked into the building."
Newell waited inside
until five minutes after nine. "The woman came out and said,
'Your kids did not want to go with you. You're going to have to
wait here an additional ten minutes for the wife and kids to drive
away.'"
He
waited for ten minutes and then she said he could go, says Newell.
The rest of Newell's morning
and afternoon, he says, was filled with business paperwork and various
errands. Newell then went to a friend's restaurant where he did
some work.
At quarter-to-five, as
Newell left the restaurant, two Holbrook police cruisers drove up
and blocked his vehicle.
Newell says the police
informed him that he was under arrest for violation of 209A (restraining
order) because he saw his wife at the visitation center.
Newell told the police
he did not violate the order. He said he was at the center for the
visitation and the former wife arrived early and parked in the wrong
lot.
Visitation Center Employees Agree with
Newell
According to the police report,
the employees at the visitation center agreed with Newell's story.
The report says, "Victim Catherine was not parked in the correct
parking lot."
The former wife told police
that when she drove up, she saw Newell put his hands in his pockets
and give her a "penetrating, mean looking stare." She
also complained he was six to nine feet away from her when he should
be one hundred yards away.
The daughter agreed that
Newell made a face, according to police. Newell explained that his
former wife tries to alienate his children from him and tells their
daughter what to say, a common complaint among divorced fathers
without custody.
According to the police
report, the former wife was upset when she went into the visitation
center. She asked two employees to keep Newell there for twenty
minutes while she drove away to call the police. She also told them
to tell Newell that the children did not want to visit with him
today.
Filthy Jail at Brockton
Newell was kept at the Brockton
police station from Saturday through to Monday. There was blood
on the walls and floor in the holding cell. He was told the previous
occupant smashed his head on the wall and was bleeding. Nobody cleaned
up the mess.
"The cell was very
filthy. There was urine on the walls, spit on the walls, plus the
blood and everything else. The toilet reeked. There were ants floating
around on the floor and I slept on a hard wooden board," said
an unshaven Newell after he was released.
Newell stood with his
hands and feet shackled at his arraignment Monday in Brockton District
Court. He was released on his own recognizance and his case was
continued until Nov. 30.
Brockton and Holbrook Violated Constitution
It was Judge Edward F. Harrington
who said last year that a policeman and Lawrence could be liable
for damages in his U.S. court for doing what the Brockton and Holbrook
police did to Ken Newell.
The city of Lawrence attempted
to have the case thrown out before a trial was held. But the judge
refused to do so, holding that if the plaintiff could prove what
he alleged in his Complaint, he would be entitled to cash damages.
The facts in Newell's
case appear to be stronger for the father than they were in Judge
Harrington's case.
The policeman there argued
to Judge Harrington that he had followed Massachusetts law. He claimed
he had investigated the case thoroughly and had good reason to arrest
the plaintiff because he had obtained a copy of the restraining
order, researched the law, consulted with both his supervisor, Sgt.
Robert Nochnuck, and the clerk magistrate of the Lawrence District
Court, Keith E. McDonough, before issuing a warrant for the arrest
of the plaintiff.
However, the father-plaintiff
in that case, James Nollet, argued that under a 1991 opinion, Lewis
v. Kendrick, from the U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, the policeman
should have realized that the accusation by the ex-wife was totally
unsupported and unverifiable and therefore did not constitute probable
cause. He argued that the police can not arrest as soon as they
hear an accusation from a woman without determining that there was
probable cause to arrest.
He also argued to the
judge that the policeman made no attempt to talk to him and hear
his side of the case before issuing the warrant for his arrest.
In the present case, the
harassment of Ken Newell is legend in both towns and the police
know all about it.
In the case from the U.S.
Court of Appeals which was cited by Judge Harrington, the court
wrote that "an asserted victim of a crime is a reliable informant
even though his or her reliability has not theretofore been proven
or tested," but, if possible to do so, the officer must verify
the facts and cannot take the word of just the alleged victim.
Nollet sought damages
for "false arrest" and "false imprisonment."
He told the court in his original Complaint, "[T]his is urgent
because [plaintiff] believes Defendant's illegal warrant and arrest
was not an isolated incident, but rather is something that happens
frequently and routinely in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in
that men are always arrested, even without Probable Cause, as soon
as police officers understand that it is an accusation of Domestic
Violence or violation of a Restraining Order that has been made.
It is Plaintiff's belief that police officers everywhere must be
sent a message that constitutionally sub-standard arrests cannot
and will not be tolerated, even if such arrests are performed to
attempt to alleviate the serious problem of Domestic Violence."
Told He Will 'Never Win'
When Newell and his wife first
separated, the court psychologist, Dr. Krock, advised Newell, to
leave the state and his children. "Ken, you have to understand
one thing. You will never win," she said, continuing, "The
best thing for you to do is let your wife have everything she wants.
Give the kids to your wife and leave the state for a few years.
Then come back and everything will be calm."
Attorney
Chester Darling tells Massachusetts News, "This newest case
is another instance of an abuse of the court system by women who
deliberately manipulate it to their advantage and to the disadvantage
of their children. It's always the children that get hurt in these
procedures, and it's my intent to bring an abuse of process action
against this person to stop her from this illegal activity."

Plymouth Police Did Not Arrest
What Is Wrong with Holbrook and Brockton?

The last time Ken Newell’s former wife called the
police was on November 30 last year. She told a Plymouth police
officer that Newell was following her in his truck. He was, in fact,
out with friends that evening in another town. The police officer
noticed that the woman’s story did not add up after questioning,
and he wrote in his report: “At this time I asked Ms. Newell to
fill out a victim statement form. Ms. Newell was adamant about not
filling out the form. Ms. Newell further stated that she does not
want any further police services. Due to the inconsistencies of
Ms. Newell's statement and the lack of cooperation, this officer
is not seeking any charges in this incident.”
|