|
Jamie
Nelson | Don Wilson
| Michael Cardamone
| Abdulahi Mahamad |
Accountability
Ex-wife used
divorce court for 'revenge': Judge orders 'vengeful' woman to
pay $200,000 for 'outrageous' trial
Cristin Schmitz, The Ottawa
Citizen, August 26, 2002
A "vengeful" woman
who was found by an Ontario divorce court to have falsely accused
her ex-husband of hiding assets, homosexual adultery and other
marital misconduct has been ordered to pay him $200,000 in legal
costs.
Superior Court Justice Peter
Hambly ruled the actions of Louise Hockey-Sweeney of Milton,
Ont. -- in forcing Lawrence Sweeney of Toronto to endure an arduous,
unnecessary divorce trial and run up more than $500,000 in legal
costs -- were "so outrageous that an order of costs against
her is required."
The judge found the 47-year-old
mother of three "used the trial proceedings not for the
purpose of resolving honest differences on the facts and the
law, but for the purpose of wreaking revenge on her husband for
her perception that he destroyed her relationship" with
a younger gay man for whom she harboured an unrequited passion.
Family law lawyers said the
mid-August decision, which is under appeal, is a warning to warring
spouses of the financial peril they face if they opt to engage
in mudslinging and unnecessary litigation.
"It is a cautionary tale
for lawyers and clients to not advance positions that impute
dishonesty without appropriate evidence," said Toronto family
law specialist Philip Epstein.
In his judgment, reported this
week in The Lawyers Weekly, Judge Hambly emphasized Ms. Hockey-Sweeney
could not be permitted "to make a fool of the court."
"Any litigant who attempts
to use the court for a purpose other than the resolution of honest
differences between the parties on the facts or the law or both
must suffer the consequences in costs," he wrote. "The
court cannot permit itself to be used by a litigant for that
litigant's own agenda."
Since suing Mr. Sweeney for
divorce in 1999, alleging cruelty and adultery, Ms. Hockey-Sweeney's
objective was "to embarrass her husband and to cause him
to incur substantial legal fees," the judge found.
"She made allegations
of assault, intentional infliction of mental suffering and a
homosexual adulterous relationship against Lawrence. She alleged
that he was hiding assets and income. She had no credible evidence
to support any of these allegations."
Despite these attacks, Judge
Hambly said the affluent businessman displayed "infinite
patience" toward Ms. Hockey-Sweeney, whom the judge described
as "emotionally unstable."
The husband, whom the judge
found assumed custody of the children after their mother indicated
she no longer wished to care for them, had offered before the
trial to pay his wife $5,000 a month in spousal support. He also
offered to forego his half-share of the value of an expensive
boat and their large home on 22 hectares near Milton.
Mr. Sweeney also assumed full
financial responsibility for the children and offered to pay
his own legal tab, which by then had run into a few hundred thousand
dollars.
Ms. Hockey-Sweeney's decision
to proceed to a trial with the "complete fabrication"
that her husband had an extramarital sexual liaison with the
gay man about whom she obsessed, and other spurious allegations
the judge found she knew to be untrue, had disastrous financial
consequences for her.
In addition to being ordered
to pay $200,000 for her husband's legal costs -- the maximum
the judge concluded she could pay -- Judge Hambly also ordered
her to pay her ex-husband $553,390 for his half of the matrimonial
assets.
The judge also cut her monthly
spousal support to $3,500, noting the final outcome was "greatly
inferior" to her husband's very generous offers. Ms. Hockey-Sweeney
went through eight lawyers before representing herself at the
five-week trial.
The judge found Ms. Hockey-Sweeney
was "obsessed with anger" because she believed her
husband destroyed her relationship with the gay man, who obtained
a one-year peace bond against her in 2000. She sent the man a
letter earlier this year suggesting they might get engaged after
her divorce, noting she had seen him in a dream where "your
eyes were all gouged out and filled with gray yucky stuff and
blood."
One of Mr. Sweeney's lawyers,
Deborah Zemans of Toronto, said her client remains concerned
about his ex-wife, but was "very pleased" the judge
saw through her false allegations.
© Copyright 2002 The
Ottawa Citizen
Case Dismissed
Against Ken Newell: Ex-Wife Will Be Surprised
When She is Sued
By Ed Oliver, February 2002,
Mass. News
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.
He had to hire lawyers to prepare
for an expensive trial.
He had to sit on pins and needles
for months considering the possibility of going to prison for
21/2 years.
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.
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell
