Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-08-2019, 09:57 PM   #1
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 684 Times in 423 Posts
Default Wolfeboro Solid Waste vs Amatucci

Anyone know what happened at the Wolfeboro Solid Waste Facility?
Looks like whatever happened has gone to NH District Court.

Here it is:
Attached Images
 
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2019, 10:39 PM   #2
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 752
Thanks: 13
Thanked 82 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
Anyone know what happened at the Wolfeboro Solid Waste Facility?
Here ya go:

https://casetext.com/case/amatucci-v-obrien
__________________
basking in the benign indifference of the universe
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 03:00 AM   #3
fatlazyless
Senior Member
 
fatlazyless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 6,281
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 193
Thanked 484 Times in 358 Posts
Default

Maybe she got arrested for failing to remove a large piece of white Styrofoam before placing that big refrigerator box onto the cardboard area? Contaminated cardboard is such a crime!

........ so, come on now Barney! ... tell me what 'zactly happened here, down at the town dump?

But ...... Andy ...... I tell ya ...... that big brown piece of cardboard had a large section of Styrofoam all attached to it ..... it was totally blatant .... I tell you, Andy!
........

Oh ok ...... that explains it ..... .... and another thing poeple want to get arrested for, is using Styrofoam without a capital S! ...
__________________
Down & out, livn that Walmart side of the lake!

Last edited by fatlazyless; 03-09-2019 at 07:01 AM.
fatlazyless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 05:33 AM   #4
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,371
Thanks: 870
Thanked 420 Times in 304 Posts
Arrow Run Away Run Away...

I suggest this case IS NOT to be discussed here.

__________________
.Sailing—Good for you and good for the world...
ApS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 06:12 AM   #5
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,565
Thanks: 454
Thanked 799 Times in 552 Posts
Default

She often takes the town to court for something.

Last edited by tis; 03-09-2019 at 07:48 AM.
tis is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 03-09-2019, 07:46 AM   #6
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,427
Thanks: 216
Thanked 783 Times in 324 Posts
Default

I found this portion of the record interesting. Apparently the NH speeding laws are not based just on the numbers: 42 MPH in a posted 30 MPH zone, but found not guilty by the court.

"The court found that Amatucci had been travelling forty-two miles per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was thirty miles per hour. The court further found, however, that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amatucci had been travelling at a speed that was "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing," and that it had therefore failed to prove a violation of the state speeding statute, N.H. Rev."

I am NOT bringing up an OLD argument but I wonder if the speed limits on the water are written the same way? As long as your speed is reasonable and prudent................

I don't want to take the time to do the research but someone with a lot of free time could probably figure this out. Hello Less?.....Less?
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 09:09 AM   #7
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 853
Thanks: 300
Thanked 470 Times in 175 Posts
Default

Typical NH small town police department BS. She seems like no angel either...
Seaplane Pilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 09:19 AM   #8
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 684 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless View Post
Maybe she got arrested for failing to remove a large piece of white Styrofoam before placing that big refrigerator box onto the cardboard area? Contaminated cardboard is such a crime!

........ so, come on now Barney! ... tell me what 'zactly happened here, down at the town dump?

But ...... Andy ...... I tell ya ...... that big brown piece of cardboard had a large section of Styrofoam all attached to it ..... it was totally blatant .... I tell you, Andy!
........

Oh ok ...... that explains it ..... .... and another thing poeple want to get arrested for, is using Styrofoam without a capital S! ...
I've found that if you sort properly and put everyyhing in the right bin than the Wolfeboro Solid Waste Facility attendants won't give you a hard time. They run a tight ship there and IMO that is how it should be run.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 09:22 AM   #9
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 684 Times in 423 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. V View Post
That case happened in 2016, the one I posted happened in 2019.

There have been many cases filed by her over the years.
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.
Rusty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 12:45 PM   #10
CTYankee
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Guilford, CT and Bear Island, NH
Posts: 25
Thanks: 314
Thanked 17 Times in 6 Posts
Default It's the Judge that got it wrong

"The court found that Amatucci had been travelling forty-two miles per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was thirty miles per hour. The court further found, however, that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amatucci had been travelling at a speed that was "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing," and that it had therefore failed to prove a violation of the state speeding statute, N.H. Rev."

Traveling at a speed above the limit as posted by the appropriate traffic authority is per se "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing." Speed limit signs are not advisory. The speed limit set for a given roadway expresses the upper legal limit of what is reasonable and prudent. The courts reasoning is completely wrong.
CTYankee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2019, 01:41 PM   #11
Skip
Senior Member
 
Skip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dover, NH
Posts: 1,601
Thanks: 245
Thanked 502 Times in 174 Posts
Default Reasonable and prudent versus Absolute

Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB View Post
I found this portion of the record interesting. Apparently the NH speeding laws are not based just on the numbers: 42 MPH in a posted 30 MPH zone, but found not guilty by the court.

"The court found that Amatucci had been travelling forty-two miles per hour in an area where the posted speed limit was thirty miles per hour. The court further found, however, that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Amatucci had been travelling at a speed that was "unreasonable and imprudent for the conditions existing," and that it had therefore failed to prove a violation of the state speeding statute, N.H. Rev."

I am NOT bringing up an OLD argument but I wonder if the speed limits on the water are written the same way? As long as your speed is reasonable and prudent................

I don't want to take the time to do the research but someone with a lot of free time could probably figure this out. Hello Less?.....Less?
There are two types of speed limits....prima facie and absolute. In NH virtually all speed violations are prima facie, including roadways, waterways and ATV/Snowmobile trails. This requires the prosecution to prove (as cited in this case) that the speed recorded above the posted limit was also “unreasonable and imprudent”. There are a few exceptions to this rule in NH on some turnpikes, where the posted limit is “absolute” and the State only needs to prove you exceeded that limit.

Other States observe the “absolute” principal. In an “absolute” State, the posted limit is the absolute limit and the State only needs to prove that the limit was exceeded.

Being a “reasonable and prudent” State is one of a number of reasons most law enforcement officials give leeway up around 12 to 15 MPH, to help ensure a conviction.
Skip is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Skip For This Useful Post:
TiltonBB (03-09-2019)
Old 03-09-2019, 03:26 PM   #12
Mr. V
Senior Member
 
Mr. V's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: the left coast (Portland)and West Alton
Posts: 752
Thanks: 13
Thanked 82 Times in 57 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
That case happened in 2016, the one I posted happened in 2019.

There have been many cases filed by her over the years.
Mea culpa: I see that now.

My post does give some detailed background for those such as myself who were unaware of this this seemingly ongoing theater of the absurd.
__________________
basking in the benign indifference of the universe
Mr. V is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-10-2019, 07:52 AM   #13
TiltonBB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Gilford, NH and Florida
Posts: 1,427
Thanks: 216
Thanked 783 Times in 324 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skip View Post
This requires the prosecution to prove (as cited in this case) that the speed recorded above the posted limit was also “unreasonable and imprudent”. There are a few exceptions to this rule in NH on some turnpikes, where the posted limit is “absolute” and the State only needs to prove you exceeded that limit.
Being a “reasonable and prudent” State is one of a number of reasons most law enforcement officials give leeway up around 12 to 15 MPH, to help ensure a conviction.
It would be interesting to see a test case. Some mid-week September morning, with no boats in sight, would 75 MPH in the middle of the Broads be "unreasonable and imprudent"?.

I suppose it depends upon the officer, and ultimately the court, to make that determination. I would think that would be tough to prosecute and get a conviction.
TiltonBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.08491 seconds