Setting Things Straight

General Forum for Danville Topics

Postby PLEIII » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:15 pm

The Westons, the Cotes, the Emilios who is next? Seems if you have roots in this town , the town is on your *** for something!!
PLEIII
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: North Danville

Postby AlfredTwo » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:39 pm

That's not even a complete list Phil. That's just the issues that have come to these forums.
AlfredTwo
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Kimball Terrace, Danville NH

Postby momof3 » Wed Jun 25, 2008 11:35 pm

Hello all Chuck cote here
ok i will answer much of this.
first the restraining order, a Town official signed an affidavid stating wanda left a threatening voice mail on chief parsons answering machine. during the hearing they again stated they have wanda making threatening comments on the answering machine , the attorneys then tried to get a copy of the recording or transcript of the recording , but were told the recording was erased and no transcript was made per the chief.

group licence:
I agree the selectmen had no right to refuse the group licence . the law is clear , it is the reponsbility of the town clerk to licence dogs and the commissioner of the deptartment of agriculture, and by the way the selectman nor the town clerk have spoken to the commisioner about the licences.
the legal term for what the selectman have done is called "ultra vires" and is defined by the supreme court is clapp v Jaffrey

commercial kennel
the state vet twice has fined me for being a commercial kennel without a licence and twice i have had a hearing and won both cases. the last case the judge scolded the state vet for his actions and clearly stated since i did apply for a licence more then a year ago and completed a
sucsessful inspection that i was entilted to a licence . the state vet replied that a selectman told him i was not in the reqirements of zoning and another town offical said that the ZBA would not allow it either due to kennels only allowed in commercial zone , and I live in a residential/ agriculturial zone .
the judge quoted the law as follows
437:3 Licenses. – Applications for licenses shall be made annually in writing to the department accompanied by a license fee of $200. After January 1, the license fee shall be $100. If after inspection the department finds that the premises, cages and facilities thereon meet the proper standards for health and sanitation and that their use will not result in inhumane treatment of said animals or birds, a license shall be issued.
the law says shall issue , state law overides any town laws, the town has no say over the licence and zoning has no bearing.

I hope this answers some of the peoples questions , i have documentation of any or all things said and am willing to give out to anyone. we also will be getting the current animal abuse hearing on cd from the district court and will make copies for all to hear .
Thanks Chuck cote
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby curt » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:32 am

From http://www.answers.com/topic/ultra-vires?cat=biz-fin:

Political Dictionary: ultra vires

Literally, ‘beyond powers’. Ultra vires has two meanings: (1) substantive ultra vires where a decision has been reached outside the powers conferred on the decision taker; and (2) procedural ultra vires where the prescribed procedures have not been properly complied with. The doctrine of ultra vires gives courts considerable powers of oversight over decision-making. The range and variety of bodies amenable to the doctrine is large. Ministers, or any public body with statutory powers, may be included. The doctrine also applies to companies and corporations that are amenable to the remedies of declaration or injunction.

A local authority that enters an agreement or contract that is outside its statutory powers is said to be acting ultra vires. In Hazel v. Hammersmith [1991] 1 All ER 545, the House of Lords held that various speculative investments undertaken by local authorities lacked express statutory authorization and were void with severe consequences for those who had invested in local authority activities declared illegal by the courts.

The grounds for claiming ultra vires range from abuse of power, acting unreasonably (Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food [1968] AC 997), or acting not in accordance with the rules of natural justice. Ultra vires is a formidable doctrine for the courts to intervene and challenge the legality of decisions. Ultra vires may result in significant consequences for the body exercising legal powers. In many cases the decision that is ultra vires may be said, in law, never to have taken place, with often severe consequences from such a finding on the parties to any agreement.

— John McEldowney

From http://www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebSite/InfoForOfficials/legalqamasterpage.asp?LegalQAID=59
Q. Why can’t towns decide to plow private driveways or private roads?
A. It is commonly held that public funds cannot be spent for the benefit of private individuals. Clapp v. Town of Jaffrey, 97 N.H. 456 (1952). Moreover, RSA 231:59 provides that municipal highway funds can only be spent on Class IV and V highways. Thus, funds cannot be expended for Class VI highways or private roads. The town may perform such services to private individuals if the individuals pay a sufficient fee so that no tax monies are being expended and if the services provided are subordinate and incidental to the needs of the town. In other words, the town could not make purchases of equipment or hire help beyond its own reasonable public needs in order to use them for the benefit of private persons, even if they were reimbursed for the services provided.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby momof3 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:29 am

clapp v Town of Jaffrey, 97 N.H. 456 (1952).
nice job curt, with the research
contrary to most town officals feelings , they feel empowered to do as they please unless the law says they can not. but the court says the oposite that unless the legislature gives them the authority .then they have no authority.
clapp v Town of Jaffrey, 97 N.H. 456 (1952). limits the power of the town greatly.
thanks chuck
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby curt » Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:04 am

Chuck/Wanda wrote:we also will be getting the current animal abuse hearing on cd from the district court and will make copies for all to hear .


I'd like to watch? / hear? this, would others?

Chuck/Wanda will you commit to releasing this for posting on SoD whether things go in your favor or not?
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby momof3 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:32 am

yes curt
chuck cote
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby momof3 » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:06 pm

I believe we have already prevailed and that the Town of Danville is just hanging on by a thread. So yes we will let all know the out come including which ones of your local authorities committed perjury.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby AlfredTwo » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:30 pm

If I might make a suggestion, the word "perjury" has some very specific meaning in legal terms and while I have little doubt that you really do mean that you expect people to commit a felony you may want to be careful how easily you toss that word around.

You might want to work things as "incorrect statements" just to try an keep the lawyers out of it. I'm sure readers here will know what you mean. :-)
AlfredTwo
 
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2006 12:04 am
Location: Kimball Terrace, Danville NH

Postby curt » Thu Jun 26, 2008 12:33 pm

Wanda / Chuck,
Please don't post here that a specific person "committed perjury" based on a specific thing that he or she said in court. It's fine to point out that somebody said something, and that you believe that it is incorrect or untrue and what you think is actually true, and why.

See RSA 641:1, Definition of Perjury

It's not enough to prove that a statement was incorrect to prove perjury, which is a felony. You also have to prove that the person knew it was incorrect and that it actually affected the outcome of the proceeding.

The one time we actually censored a post on SoD was when somebody posted that two people (naming names) committed conspiracy, a felony, on the stated basis that they had held a meeting behind closed doors, to which the poster was not a party.

I hate censorship. Please don't put the sponsors of SoD into the position of having to consider censorship by naming names (or positions) and alleging the commission of felonies. State what was said, what you think is actually correct, and why, and let the readers of SoD infer perjury on their own if they are so inclined based on RSA 641:1 and their estimation of the credibility of the person who made the statement, and your credibility.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby curt » Thu Jun 26, 2008 11:00 pm

I am told by two reliable sources that the case was heard today and that the judge will deliver the verdict via the US mail.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby curt » Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:55 am

Published: June 27, 2008 01:19 am

Animal cruelty trial concludes
By Terry Date
Eagle Tribune
Staff writer

Suspense hangs over the case of a Danville woman charged with animal cruelty. The two-day trial of Wanda Cote, 46, concluded yesterday in Plaistow District Court.

Judge Robert LaPointe said he would take the arguments under advisement and render a decision by Monday.

Cote was arrested by Danville police on Nov. 26, 2007, after a 4-year-old female beagle named Hope was found as a stray. The dog belonged to Cote.

Authorities maintain the dog was emaciated and vomiting worms. Cote denies this.

In her lawyer's closing arguments yesterday, Stephen Jeffco said his client had fed and cared for Hope, consulting her veterinarian on the dog's diet after it got sick.

Prosecutor Jill Cook said she rested her case on the evidence, including testimony from four veterinarians.

"Four veterinarians all said the same thing — that dog was malnourished," Cook said.

Cote testified that the dog was thin to begin with, and was depleted after giving birth to nine puppies in August. She said the dog escaped a month later.

Cote, of 6 Cote Drive, was arraigned Jan. 14 on the misdemeanor charge. The maximum sentence for the charge is one year in prison.

She was arrested after a two-month investigation by Hampstead Animal Control Officer Dale Childs.

Childs was asked to investigate because Danville's animal control officer, Sheila Johannesen, has a restraining order against Cote. The investigation began around Labor Day, when Hope was found as a stray, Childs said earlier.

Childs said the dog was brought to several veterinary hospitals in the area. The dog was found to have a heart murmur.

Hope was taken to the New Hampshire Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Stratham. At last check, that is where the dog remained.

Picture of Wanda Cote testifying
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby curt » Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:20 am

Prosecutor Jill Cook is an assistant county attorney who handles cases in Plaistow District Court. I believe that the town pays for her services under a contract with the county attorney's office.

The defense attorney, Stephen Jeffco, is a well known and established criminal lawyer whose office is in Portsmouth.
Curt Springer
curt
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:19 am
Location: 228 Sandown Road, North Danville

Postby momof3 » Mon Jun 30, 2008 5:02 pm

No developments on the trial to date, but I am now bringing this issue forward.

Dear Selectmen:

On May 5, 2008, the Town of Danville, ACO picked up my dog (Linda) off our property and then transported her to the NHSPCA.

The Danville ACO stole my dog off my property causing my family and myself extreme distress. We searched the entire weekend for this dog, including calling the Danville Police Station and Rockingham Dispatch numerous times with no response back from the Danville Police as to the whereabouts of Linda or as to her status.

With all that has been going on between myself and the Town of Danville, I consider this to be harassment in the most excessive form committed by the town in letting a complete family grieve an entire weekend as to the condition of our beloved Linda.

The Danville ACO has a restraining order out on me because she is supposedly “in fear of her life from me,” so tell me why was she on my property illegally picking up my dog. For your convenience I am providing you with a copy of the Danville Animal Control Violation.

The NHSPCA charged me a $50.00 fee to pick Linda up from them, I am seeking a full reimbursement for this amount from the Town of Danville. Failure to reimburse this fee will result in a small claims action being filed with the Plaistow District Court.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

Postby momof3 » Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:50 am

I called the court today because the decision still had not arrived in the mail as planned. The decision is that I Wanda Cote am NOT GUILTY of animal abuse as the Town of Danville has charged.

Now let's see how much of a fight I have to go through to get the dog back.

Also on Thursday, June 26, 2008 prior to the start of the Selectmens meeting they did not realize it but they were being broadcast and a very large gentlemen who I believe to be Shawn O'Neil made some comments that were heard by the public. I take offense to those comments Shawn and you had no right laughing and stated that, "I (Wanda Cote) had supposedly incriminated myself during the trial and that both of my doctors had stated on the stand that neither one of them had seen the dog in question."

You were not at this trial and furthermore everything you heard was from the individuals that have been lying throughout this whole ordeal.

Shame on you Shawn O'Neil for making comments that you could not prove, this really shows your true side now doesn't it.
Last edited by momof3 on Tue Jul 01, 2008 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
momof3
 
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Jun 22, 2008 6:19 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Danville General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron