PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS

1 . A NO PARKING SIGNS

2. TOOK NORMAN BOLDUC TO COURT FOR GOLFCART ON MY PROPERTY

3 . COPY OF MALONEYS' SIGN SHE PLACED ON MY HOUS E

4. MALONEY CALLED THE HEALTH INSPECTOR TO COMPLAINT ABOUT

MY SEPTIC

5 . MAILBOXES

6. POLICE OFFICER KEATON, TOOK LETTER TO MALONEY- CAME TO COURT

TO VERIFY THAT MALONEY HAS BEEN HARASSING PLAINTIFF FOR YEARS .

7. ATTORNEY HANSON'S LETTER TO BOLDUC

8. TRANSCRIPT OF COURT HEARING FOR STALKING ORDER

9. MY LETTER TO BOLDU C

10. FINAL STALKING ORDER

11 . DEFENDANTS AT POLICE STATIO N

12 . COURT HEARING FOR VIOLATION OF STALKING ORDER

13 . CASE DISMISSED

14 . JUDGE REMOVED "RELATIVES"' FROM STALKING ORDE R

15 . PICTURES OF MALONEYS' CAR BLOCKING PLAINTIFFS' DRIVEWAY .

16. MEANING OF FAMILY

17. SAME CASE - ALREADY FILED - DIFFERENT DEFENDANTS

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 1 of 67
Jo dl

Mr. William Lambert

State Bureau of Traffic

Route 10 6

220 Sheep Davis Road

Concord, NH 03301

September 4, 2001

E

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT

BOARD OF SELECTMEN

Paul R. Hatch, Chairman

Earl L. Kenisto n

Shirley E. Gane m

TOWN MANAGER

Paul J . Skowron

Dear Mr. Lambert:

Please find attached the following :

1 . Letter dated July 17, 2001, directed to Josephine Amatucci from Randy Talon, District

3, Bureau of Highway Maintenance .

2. Letter dated August 8, 2001, directed to Randy Talon, District 3, Bureau of Highway

Maintenance from the Wolfeboro Town Manager.

3 . Letter dated August 9, 2001, directed to the Wolfeboro Town Manager from Randy

Talon, District 3, Bureau of Highway Maintenance .

From your review of the above correspondence, please be advised that the Wolfeboro

Board of Selectmen are requesting the State Department of Transportation to install no parking

signs along Ms. YWcci s property on Route 109.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me .

Cor

Attachments

Town anager

aul J. SYowron

cc: Board of Selectmen w/o attachments /

Josephine Amatucci w/o attachments V

PJS/acm

/%Y.1/Jfi.9X/6/ ia.c~6C9~9695i6j

I

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 2 of 67
He,,, t (A4"j,&jkre THE STATE OF NEW HAIVIPSHIRE

DEPARTM1IENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N

CAROL A. MURRAY, P.E.

CONEVIISSIONER

August l8, 2003

Josephine Amatucci

P .O . Box 272

Wolfeboro Falls, N.H. 03896

RE : Drivewav Status

P.c *e 109 Wolfebor o

Dear Ms. Amatucci,

This letter is a follow up of our telephone conversations we have had in the past

week. The main focus was whether or not you have a legal driveway .

You have a arand-fathered driveway for the land that you currently own and abuts

Route 109 . This driveway existed before the statutory authority RSA 236:13 became

ef:cctive Tuiv 1, 1971 . Your drivewav is the access from Route 109 to our home and no

one can block your drivewav .

Ropefully this answers any questions you had .

Sincerely .

Mark P. Morrill. P .E .

District Engineer

cc: Wolfeboro PD

Marty Bilafer

Kenneth Kyle

Stephen Gray

William Lambert

Rl REAL OF IIIGHWAY MAINTENANCE - DISTRICT THREE - 2 SA W)IILL ROAD - GILFORD, N I1 . 03249

TELEPHONE : (603) 524-6667 FAX : (603) 524-8027 - TDD .ACCESS : RELAY SH (800) 735-2964

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 3 of 67
trr ~

I ii c rr G`'t I ;

ci

II~

r7

I l 51-✓l f1Y

CAI' k'Y, J .-i

i J ri r~Qkll

a ~

u L I ~,J 6S -

r`,~ 1 q .-yx ;

.

VlV ..r . .

_

1 7

k

Iy. I 1-7 i 5

Signahirc

Presiding Jucticc

ORDER .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 4 of 67
ch

0

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 5 of 67
YO /UOZ

MEMORANDUM

Date : September 15, 2003

To : Paul J. Skowron, Town Manager

From : David A. Senecal, Health Inspector

Re : Josephine Amatucci

TM# 151-21

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBI T

Y

I

BUILDING DEPARTMENT

I inspected the property of Josephine Amatucci at 350 Governor Wentworth

Highway at 4 :20 pm Friday; September 12, 2003. I saw no problems with the

septic system. There were no smells and no visual outbreak.

(o'b.j) 5G:9 - G970 INCORPORATED 1770

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 6 of 67
MAILBOXES - SEE #8

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 7 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

CARROLL, SS DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN

CARROLL COUNTY

SUBPOENA

TO : Of//-Lf .JCOy/IOOtL°

ADDRESS : G' 0 ~o ept/c PO ~®L C~ ~~T

SOCIAL SEC ITY NO . :

You are required to appear at the DISTRICT COURT FOR SOUTHERN

CARROLL COUNTY, RTE 171 OSSIPEE, NH on a7L/ /m 1 av3

at O am/pm to testify to what ou know relating to the

cas e between and

Nil f/'J /fz"r- /- f1A~ddey . Casc b3cd09 Z

You are further required to bring with you and produce at the time

described above the following :

IF YOU FAIL TO APPEAR AS REQUIRED BY THIS SUMMONS , you will be

subject to the penalties prescribed by law which may includ e

arrest .

Dated at this day of , 2000

Justice of the Peace PRISCILLAC . KEAION tp~~LL S

Justice of the Peace

My C ommissionExpiresonJan.4,2006 ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF : Jpse~k. w ~hna}ucc~

Phone :

RETURN OF SERVIC E

have served a copy of thi subpoena to the above name

~f i <t~" Sc'~Tf 7~e;' 1 on the day of 7 YJ c '

2-Q O at am/pm.

NOTE : "THE ISSUING PARTY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF ALL FEES

INCLUDING MILEAGE AS REQUIRED BY LAW .

FEES PAID BY THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ARE PAYABLE THROUGH THE

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, and submitted by this office on a

monthly basis .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 8 of 67
Mrs. Pauline Maloney

188 Stoneham Road

Wolfeboro, New Hampshire 0389 4

Dear Pauline :

This letter is to advise you that I do not want you anywhere near my prope rty, I do not want you

Parking your car in front of my prope rty, and I do not want you anywhere near my side road with

The exception of riding down the road, without stopping, to visit your relatives .

You are not allowed to back up to tu rn around on my side road like you have been doing all along,

Even though I have asked you not to back your car on my p rivate road. You have no right to

Park or back up anywhere near my property, that includes in front of my driveway and o n

The side road, or anywhere near my property. You are trespassing,

Let this letter be a warning that if you do not stay away from my prope rty I will move forward

With Legal action and have the law stop you from trespassing . This will be your last chance .

Josephine Amatucci

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 9 of 67
HANSON LAW OFFICE

51 iv{ill Street, I I Bayside Village Prof. Bldg.

. vol Box 201 4

Wolfeboro, New Flampshire 03 8 94-20 14

TELI (603) 569-6682 / FAX (603) 569-5982

November 10, 2003

Mr. and Mrs. Norman Bolduc

61 Lawrence Street

Danvers, MA 0192 3

removal of outbuildings

2

Jon S .B.C. Hanson, squtre

Admitted to practice in NN and MA

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bolduc,

A d t t ' d IF

I h tl t " ' h J h av ec t i A t tu es uc n an em a w

(2)1 outbuildings which Ms. Amatucci claims belonged to her.

In reviewing the assertion made by Ms. Amatucci and the documentation I have reviewed

I believe Ms . Allen has a strong case . I base my opinion on the following:

A. Plan entitled "Plan of Boundary Line Adjustment Involving Lands of Ron

Kennis and Normand and Lois Bolduc ." This plan clearly evidences two

structures which are identified as "outhouses".

B. A deed from Elizabeth McKenzie to Eugene Head which evidences as

easement for accessing a well and the outbuildings which are evidenced on the

Plan referred to in paragraph 'A' above .

C. Notes of a discussion between Ms. Amatucci and you wherein it is asserted

that you acknowledged to Ms. Amatucci that 1 . you did have the outbuildings

torn down, and 2. you were advised to take said action by your insurance

company.

Your actions are viewed by Ms. Amatucci as being an extension of previous actions which

she perceives to be aggressive, mean spirited, and in violation of her property rights . There is no

doubt in my mind that your actions were done 1 . without permission from Ms . Amatucci, and 2 . in

contradiction to her property rights as set forth in the deed referred to in paragraph 'B' above .

In addition to setting forth the foregoing Ms. Amatucci hereby goes on record ofadvising that

your unilateral actions are not construed or accepted by her as being a legal reduction or elimination

of the rights she acquired by virtue ofthe appurtenant easements gr anted in the aforementioned deed

despite the fact that your actions have in fact directly and significantly interfered/prevented her from

using and maintaining the bu ildings.

e r en y me wt osep ne ma ucct regar tng yo r o r ov o o

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIB R

L 11

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 10 of 67
Ms. Amatucci tells me that there are two (2) possible solutions which would be acceptable

to her. The first would involve you/your agents reconstructing the outbuildings in the same location

an, din substantially the same configurations. The second solution would be a payment of$1,500 .00

toi Ms. Amatucci and she would release her rights (relative to the use and maintenance of the

outbuildings. Please give this matter your consideration and let me know your thoughts on or before

December 1, 2003 .

My understanding is that Ms. Amatucci will seek Court intervention if a satisfactorily

resolution is not reached on or before December 31, 2003 .

Very truly yours ,

Jon S .B .C. Hanson

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 11 of 67
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 3

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

PLAINTIFF'S

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE EXHIBIT

CARROLL, s s

Josephine Amatucci

V .

Pauline Maloney

SUPERIOR COUR T

03-E-080 and 03-E-08 1

an d

Pauline Malone y

V .

Josephine Amatucc i

FINAL HEARING/STALKIN G

Before : Honorable JAMES D . O'NEILL, III,

Presiding Justice, Superior Court,

Carroll County Superior Court,

Ossipee, New Hampshire ,

on November 12, 2003 .

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : Josephine Amatucci, Pro se

For the Respondent : Pauline Maloney, Pro se

Clerk : Samuel Farrington, Esq .

Official Court Reporter : Theresa M . Vadala, RMR

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 12 of 67
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

E

A

1 0

1 3

14

15

16

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

P R 0 C E E D I N G S

THE COURT : Pauline Maloney v . Josephine

Amatucci and Josephine Amatucci v . Pauline

Maloney . Docket numbers on these matters 03-E-OBO

and 03-E-081 . Okay . The parties stand and

identify themselves for the record .

MS . AMATUCCI : Josephine Amatucci .

MS . MALONEY : Pauline Maloney .

THF CnTTRT, Why rlnn't vnn hnth ha seated if 1' u

would . Okay . What's before the Court is a final

hearing on the stalking petitions . In reference

to docket 03-E-080 this is in reference to a

stalking petition that was filed with the District

Court on or around 8/6/03 . In reference to docket

03-E-081 this is in reference to a stalking

petition that was originally granted by the

District Court and that docket was filed on or

around 7/1/03 as well .

And it appears that -- I can't read the writing

-- I believe it's Judge Varney -- indicated that

apparently there was an interest in real estate

raised as well . I am not sure how that involves

the stalking petition .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 13 of 67
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

22

Ms . Amatucci, why don't you tell me what brings

you to court today .

MS . AMATUCCI : I live across the street from

Lake Wentworth, Your Honor .

THE COURT : Okay .

MS . AMATUCCI : On a small local beach and I

have owned my property for 12 years . I have a legal

driveway that I use to access my property . For th e

o ann a a1f years Ms Ma1an ev whn 1iva c

next-door has been blocking my driveway along with

her husband . They started blocking my driveway in

retaliation because of an incident I had with her

grandson . He was driving his golf cart on my lot

all hours of the day and night . I had to call the

police and the police stopped him . I tried in

vain to have the police ticket her but they did

not do so . They have told her countless times to

remove her car . But when they leave, she comes

back . Up to five times a day she parks and blocks

my driveway and I can't get her away . Officer

Moore repeated this at District Court to verify

that I have been having trouble with her for two

and a half years .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 14 of 67
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

I an very, very upset with her offending

nature, her offending behavior . She has an

obsession to get me, to make me nervous, to upse t

me . She blocks my driveway intentionally and in

doing so she is violating state law . She is

denying me my right to enjoy my property, and she

has no right to be there .

Mrs . Maloney made my life a living hell . She

stir red up the beach people against me . She tell s

them park in my lot because they have a right to

park there . She has filed many, many complaints

about me to the town office . The latest just a

couple of weeks ago . She claimed that my septic

system was in failure to them . I had to endure

inspection by the Town . Even though they didn't

agree with her, they had to do the inspection .

They told me it was she who put the complaint in

and that she was driving them crazy about

complaints with me . And that is -- that's it in a

nutshell .

I do want to add I never bother her . I never

bothered any of the people on the beach . I never

bother anyone . I stay in my house . I don't even

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 15 of 67
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

go to the beach, and it's only across the street .

She is sitting on my lot when I am home . I don't

bother -- I never bother anyone .

THE COURT : Okay . Thank you, ma'am .

Mrs . Maloney, you are here and have cross

complaints for stalking . Why don't you tell m e

7 I J what brings you to court today . I

e 1 9 I

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

17

18

MRS . MALONEY :

rpP

First of all, Your Honor, it' s

ounli c

0 /does not have a driveway cut in front of he r

ya rds from her and I park there because it' s

I carry things to the beach .

building . She has been told the driveway is to

the left of the building and it's a right-of-way .

She cannot block -- the driveway is behind th e

j building . I have been parking in this area -- I

have a camp right -- not next-door -- about 10 0

1 zidve d 1eLCer LiidL YUe5 DdCK LO 17JJ cna t

19 states it ' s a three rod road, and I have picture s

20 of the area we are talking about if you would like

21 to look at them .

22 THE COURT : Why don't you just tell me about

23 them.

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 16 of 67
MS . MALONEY : We have had two or three

selectmen meetings because she wanted no parking

put up, and the State and the Town refuse to put

no parking signs on either side of the road

because the public uses the beach and it's -- th e

7

1 3

14

1 5

1 6

17

01 shoulder of the road is very wide . People ca n

,fApull over, and besides parking their car, they can

,, ~rC still walk on the shoulder of the road . Sh e

,

doesn't want any parking in frnnt nf her h„ilding

5he doesn't have a legal driveway anyway . I have

been parking there for 20 years . And now she has

put a mailbox out there so nobody -- that is on

the shoulder of the road and nobody can pull over

and it's public parking . The selectmen and the

State will not put up no parking signs that she

had requested .

L

And I've never gone on her property and I don' t

18 /j11 .(have people on the beach against her . I have

19

XN

~' St~ never spoken to them . They all have their own

20 opinions . She does come out of the house . She

21 comes after people when they park in the driveway

22 or in front of her place on her driveway screamin g

23 at everybody to move their car . She has called

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 17 of 67
2

the police all the time . Nothing they can do

because I am legally parked or anybody else . It

is not just myself . She has harassed everybody .

She did over $2,000 damage to a car that was

parked there . She put cylinder blocks up in the

fender of the car . She attacked my friend . They

wanted to come to court but they were out of state

and could not make the court date so it was

dismissed . But she has done all that damagp She

does come out . She attacks people . And, you

know, I want to put a stop to this and have a

court order to have her never talk to me or my

family again and also the Court to order her to

move those mailboxes . She has one address . She

has two mailboxes there with one address . And I

have a letter from the Planning Board to state she

has one address and because she -- it's a hazard

now . She is blocking traffic .

THE COURT : Okay . Now, Mrs . Maloney, I assume

you would have no objection to the following

order . That in fact Ms . Amatucci not have any

contact or communication with you whatsoever or

your r members of your family . ; You wouldn't

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 18 of 67
1 disagree with that .

2 MS. MALONEY : No, I wouldn't .

3 THE COURT : In turn , you would be enjoined from

4 having any communication or contact witQ her o r

5

6

7

8

1 0

11

rr her family .

MS . MALONEY : I never speak to her .

THE COURT : Okay . Ms . Amatucci, do you have

any objection to that particular provision ?

MS . AMATUCCI : Sure . I am sorry .

THE COURT : In other words, you would stay --

12 . you would have no contact or communication wit h

-1

14 1 MS. AMATUCCI : Oh, definitely . I never hav e

contact with $er .) Sure .

1 9

20

THE COURT : Let me finish my question . You

would have no objection to Mrs . Maloney no contact

or communication with either her --

MS . AMATUCCI : Yes .

THE COURT : -~ or a member of her family, . Yo u

21 would have no contact or communication .

22 MS. AMATUCCI : Yes .

23 THE COURT : Do you have any objection to that?

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 19 of 67
9

1

2

3

4

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

14

15

16

17

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

MS . AMATUCCI : No .

THE COURT : As far as moving the mailbox, that

goes well beyond the stalking petition that you

two have filed . So only coming out of today' s

/hearing is a reflection of the agreement between

you two ; that is, you stay away from her ; she wil l

stay away from you ; and have no communication .

MS . AMATUCCI : I think it should be more than

that, Your Hnnnr _

THE COURT : Excuse me .

MS . AMATUCCI : She claims that the State --

that everybody agreed that I have a legal driveway

and you didn't read the papers there . I think she

should know that and I think that you should tell

her that . I have copies of the papers here . She

is all mixed up . The Town agreed to install no

parking signs and the DOT, Department of

Transportation, there is a letter there saying

that that is a legal driveway, and nobody can

block it out . She doesn't know that .

MS . MALONEY : Yes, I do, because I have a copy

of that letter .

THE COURT : Excuse me . Have you completed your

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 20 of 67
LQ

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

comments, Ms . Amatucci?

MS . AMATUCCI : Yes .

THE COURT : Okay . Mrs . Maloney, anything else?

MS . MALONEY : No, sir .

(An unidentified person started to talk . )

THE COURT : These are the two partie s

Mrs . Maloney, anything further?

MS . MALONEY : Yes .

THE COURT : What h ave you got to say .

10 MS. MALONEY : Yes, Your Honor . She has smashed

11 a car . We don't want anymore grieve from her .

12

13

She is dangerous now . She's been a nuisance fo r

14 t

1 5

16

17

f

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

several years . She is dangerous now . Next time

she opens her mouth, let's go to court . Let's end

this nonsense . The last time she went after

somebody . This has got to stop . That's a state

highway . It is not her property . Can we define

her property before this hearing is over ?

THE COURT : No . This is not a hearing on any

definition of property . All it is, you filed a

domestic -- you have filed a stalking petition and

Ms . Amatucci has filed a stalking petition . If

you want to go into details and things like this,

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 21 of 67
LI

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 0

H 1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

it is an entirely different pleading . What I hav e

before me is two stalking petitions which it

appears you both agree to .

Anything else, Ms . Amatucci ?

MS . AMATUCCI : If it's as simple as that . .).

THE COURT : Mrs . Maloney .

MS . MALONEY : Well, the problem is we live in

Wolfeboro . We may be in line at the supermarket .

Kinu o om on e

another . But I don't want her saying anything to

me anywhere anytime .

MS . AMATUCCI : Never do .

THE COURT : Excuse me . Only one is going t o

talk . One at a time . The way the order is going

to read is : By agreement of the parties they ar e

to have no contact or communication with each

otherjI understand you both live in Wolfeboro .

J

If you see each other in the supermarket in one

line, she will go to the other . Have no contact .

MS . MALONEY : My question is about parking if

she comes after me again .

THE COURT : That's contact . You -- and that

would be a violation of the order .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 22 of 67
L2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

B

1 0

1 3

14

15

1 6

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

MS . AMATUCCI : Okay . As far as respective

parking rights or title to the property --

THE COURT : That is an entirely different

question . That is not within the purview of the

two stalking petitions that have been transferred

from the District Court without ruling . Judge

Varney made some reference to title but that's --

this is not the day to hear that . You can file

other pleadings that are necessary if you feel

your respective rights concerning parking and

property rights are in question . A stalking

petition is not the vehicle to get that question

before the Court .

MS . AMATUCCI : We were missed --- we were

misinformed . The police told me to do it that way

and I -- and I went to somebody --

THE COURT : First of all, ma'am, I told you

once if you address the Court you are expected to

stand . You were told that .

MS . AMATUCCI : I realized right away the police

misinformed . Right away I went to the police

department to change it, and they said they couldn't

change it .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 23 of 67
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 0

W yr

1 3

1 7

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

2 2

23

l3

THE COURT : Well, ma'am, at this point you can

file any pleadings you have with the Clerk of

Court upstairs . As to the police and District

Court, you are in a different court now . Again,

if you want to review your respective rights

concerning some driveway and parking --

MS . AMATUCCI : Yeah .

THE COURT : -- apparently the Town will be

involved as well, it will necessitate different

pleadings than what is before the Court which are a --

MS . AMATUCCI : What a waste of time .

THE COURT : -- stalking petition . Both of you are !

going to agree to stay away fr om each other .

MS . AMATUCCI : She can't come in front of my

driveway .

THE COURT : No, ma'am . It doesn't -- no

contact or communication . As to the respective

rights of the driveway, that is not within th e

purview of the court .

MS . AMATUCCI : What a waste . I can't believe

it . This is like wasted time . I cannot stand

having these people on my back .

THE COURT : Thank you very much . You will be

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 24 of 67
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1 0

1 3

14

15

16

17

1 8

1 9

2 0

2 1

22

getting a court order but you all understand what

it says . You all have a nice day . Thank you .

Court in recess .

THE BAILIFF : Rise for the court, please .

(Whereupon, the hearing concluded .)

CERTIFICAT E

I, Theresa M . Vadala, Certified Shorthand

Papnrtar in and for the State n New Hampshire and

the New Hampshire Superior Court System, do hereby

certify that the foregoing transcript, as reduced

to computer type under my supervision, is a

transcription of my stenographic notes to the best

of my knowledge, skill, ability and belief .

Date : -7_-O`

Theresa M . Vadala, RMR

23

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 25 of 67
I

NOVEMBER 13,200 3

Mr. Norman Bolduc:

As you know I am very upset that you destroyed my two "OUTHOUSES" structures, that were in the

back ofmy house . Although the two "OUTHOUSES" were sitting on your land they were there long

before you bought the land and as you are well aware I pwn them, I use them and I have a legal right to

keep them there, and the legal right to use them . YOU }-1.AD NO RIGHT TO DESTROY THEM AND

TAKE THHEM AWAY .

1 am therefore demanding that you pay an amount of $1,000 .00 for the loss of the "OUTI IOUSES" that

you destroyed and removed .

You said you was sorry, but you have to pay for my loss. Besides, frow my experience with you in the

past I know you as a neighbor who doesn't care about u9F or my Feelings or how upset I would be with your

actions. You are not sorry .

If 1 do not receive the $1,000.00 by November 30, 2003 I will give this case to my lawyer and take you to

court for damages, and we will also make you pay for legal fees incurred .

JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI

P. O. BOX 272

WOLFEBORO FALLS, N .H. 03896

P.S : TO ADDRESS THE GOLFCART SITUATION, YOU TOLD ME YOUR SON LEFT THE

GOLFCART ON TIIE ROAD, COME ON NORMAN, YOU KNOW I IOW MANY TIMES I

ADDRESSED YOU ABOUT NOT LEAVING THE GOLFCART ON THE ROAD, I EVEN ASKED

THE POLICE TO TALK TO YOU . DO YOU REALIZE WHAT LEGAL LIABILITY I WOULD HAVE

IF SOMEONE HAD AN ACCIDENT TURNING ON THAT ROAD AND HAD AN ACCIDENT,

BECAUSE OF YOUR GOLFCART . PARKED THERE, YOU CAUSED ME GREAT EXPENSES TO

GET YOUR GOLFCART OFF MY ROAD, I HAD TO GET LEGAL COUNSEL AND I HAD TO PAY

FOR A SURVEY OF THE PROPERTY LINE, IN ORDER TO PRESENT MY CASE TO COURT

PROPERLY. NOT TO MENTION THE SADNESS IN MY HEAR'I' THAT I HAVE SOMEONE LIKE

YOU AS A NEIGHBOR.

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 26 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carroll Superior Court

Courthouse Square, Route 171

P_ O. Box 433/Ossipee Village

Ossipee, NH 03864

603 539-2201

NO'I'ICE OF DECISIO N

JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI

PO BOX 27 2

WOLFEBORO FALLS NH 0389 6

03-E-0081 Josephine Amatucci v Pauline Malone y

Enclosed please find a copy of the Court's Order dated 11/12/2003

relative to :

Final Order on Stalking Petitio n

11/13/200 3

cc : Pauline Malone y

Wobfeboro Police Department

Samuel Farrington

Clerk of Court

I

AOC Pnrm SUCP050 (Rev . 09/27/2001)

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 27 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS . SUPERIOR COURT

Josephine Amatucci

V .

Pauline Maloney

03-E-081

and

Pauline Maloney

V .

Josephine Amattuc l

03-E-080

ORDER

Hearing held on the two (2) pending Stalking Petitions submi tted by the

respective parties in the District Court which were transferred without Rulings to the

ICou rt by Order (dated 7110/03-Vamey-J .). Subsequent to offers of proof by the

parties, representing themselves pro se, the Court renders the following

determination(s).

At the agreement of the parties (see record), the following provision Is

directed:

1) That the parties are enjoined from having any contact or communication

with the other respective party by any means or with that pa rties' relatives or

members of that parties' household . This Order shall remain In effect pending

ifu rther Order of the Court.

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 28 of 67
2

In reference to the question(s) of parking and/or the property rights of the

respective parties to the disputed area on Route 109 including the parameters of

the "grand-fathered" driveway of Josephine Amatucci, the Court does not have

before it sufficient equity pleadings to determine this question(s) . Accordingly, no

finding on same is rendered .

So Ordered.

Date 40 Jai hes D. O'Nei

Presiding Justice

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 29 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT for Request to ISSUE ARREST WAR

December 03, 2003 WPD #03-45 3

I, James O'Brien being duly sworn, depose and say :

1 . I am a Patrolman, Wolfeboro Police Departmen t

I herewith make application for the issuance of an Arrest Warrant against

the defendant :

Josephine S Amatucci , DOS: 09/27/1938

of 350 Gov Wentworth Hwy, Wolfeboro NH 03894

2 . I have information that a crime (or offense) has been committed by the defendant as

follows :

1 . On November 17, 2003, at approximately 12 :04 p .m ., I spoke with

NORMAN BOLDUC (1-21-1932) and his sister PAULINE MALONEY

04-10-1935) in the lobby of the Wolfeboro Police Department in

regards to a violation of a Stalking order by JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI

(9-27-1936 . )

2 . MALONEY told me that on November 12, 2003, she and AMATUCCI

went before JUDGE JAMES O'NEIL at the Superior Court in Ossipee in

regards to a hearing on a Stalking Order . The order that was made

effective on November 12, 2003, stated in paragraph 1 the

following :

"That the parties are enjoined from having any contact or

communication with the other respective party by any means or with

that parties' relatives or members of that parties' household .

This Order remains in effect pending further Order of the Court ."

(Please see order . )

3 . BOLDUC received a certified mail letter and an uncertified mail

letter addressed to him from AMATUCCI on November 15, 2003 at

approximately 3 :00 p .m . Both letters are the same exact letter .

(Please see letter and envelopes .) Apparently AMATUCCI was making

sure the letter reached him . The letter is a clear violation of the

order in that Bolduc is a "relative" of MALONEY, being the brother

of MALONEY . BOLDUC owns the property directly behind the property

of AMATUCCI . The reason for her writing the letter is to demand

that BOLDUC pay her the sum of $1000 for two outhouses that were on

his property . The outhouses were destroyed by BOLDUC on the

recommendation of his homeowner's insurance company because of the

fact they were on wetlands and they were unsafe .

4 . AMATUCCI threatens BOLDUC with legal action if he does not pay

Page 1

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 30 of 67
THEE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT for Request to ISSUE ARREST WARRAN T

iecember OR 2003 WPD H03-453

her the $1000 by November 30, 2003 . BOLDUC and his wife are now in

fear of being sued by AMATUCCI for removing two outhouses that were

on his own property .

5 . MALONEY said that the order was made clear to AMATUCCI by JUDGE

O'NEIL in the courtroom . It is apparent that AMATUCCI wrote the

letter to BOLDUC knowing full well that she had violated the'court

order .

6 . AMATUCCI has violated NH RSA 173 :B-9 (Violation of Protective

Order), in that she contacted Mr . BOLDUC knowing that she was

ordered by the court to cease contact with any member of the

Maloney family .

. Based upon the foregoing information (and upon my personal knowl edge) there is

robable cause to believe that the defendant did commit a crime (or offense) as above

tated .

herefore, I request that the court issue an arrest warrant and order a duly

uthorized officer to take the defendant and bring him before the court having

urisdiction .

Name

lien personally appeared the above named James O'Brien and made oath that the foregoin g

ffidavit by him subscribed is true .

,efore me this

Justice of the District Court fbr Southern Carroll Count y

or Just]Ce Af the Peace

Page 2

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 31 of 67
On November 17, 2003, at approximately 12 :04 p . m ., I spoke with

NORMAN BOLDUC (1-21-1932 )

61 Lawrence Street

Danvers, MA 01923

978-774-283 3

and his sister

PAULINE MALONEY 04-10-1935)

P .O . Box 622

Wolfeboro Falls, NH 03896

569-6272

in the lobby of the Wolfeboro Police Department in regards to a violation of a

Stalking order by

JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI (9-27-1938)

350 Governor Wentworth Highway

Wolfeboro, NH 03894

569-2429 .

MALONEY told me that on November 12, 2003, she and AMATUCCI went before

JUDGE JAMES O'NEIL at the Superior Court in Ossipee in regards to a hearing

on a Stalking Order . The order that was effective on November 12, 2003 , stated

in paragraph 1 the following :

"That the parties are enjoined from having any contact or communication

with the other respective party by any means or with that parties'

relatives or members of that parties ' household. This Order remains

in effect pending further Order of the Court ." (Please see order.)

BOLDUC received a certified mail letter and an uncertified mail letter addressed

to him from AMATUCCI on November 15, 2003 at approximately 3 :00 p .m. Both

letters are the same exact letter . Apparently AMATUCCI was making sure the

letter reached him . The letter is a clear violation of the order in that Bolduc is a

"relative" of MALONEY, being the brother of MALONEY . BOLDUC owns the

property directly behind the property of AMATUCCI . The reason for her writing

the letter is to demand that BOLDUC pay her the sum of $1000 for two

outhouses that were on his property . The outhouses were destroyed by

BOLDUC on the recommendation of his homeowner's insurance company

because of the fact they were on wetlands and they were unsafe .

ames O'Brien ate

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 32 of 67
PSI Group, Inc . Pap 291a77a vow 0 9

SEr TYPEWRITER SPACING AT 1'A 0 -+lDocket# TN#

$tate of Te£n'autps4tre

COMPLAINT

❑ DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RELATE D

❑ VIOLATION CLASS A MISDEMEANOR

CLASS B

❑ FELONY

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIE13 TO APPEAR BEFORE SAID COURT

AT 17 O'CLOCKIN TIIF AM/PM ON .1annary 7 YR,2LlD4

UNDER PENALTY OF LAW '10 ANSWER TO A COMPLAINT

CHARGING YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING OFFENSE :

TO THE. . D.pk]; igt. . . . . . . . . . .COURT, COUNTY OF . .carroll . . . . . . .

THE UNDERSIGNED COMPLAINS THAT: PLEASE PRINT

NAME . . . . IiRPtVOW . . . . . . . . . JQPPP.hk4€ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 : . . .

I rl N.ne nM N`ne MI

. . 3S.Q .GPy!?xn9;.WgnP'or.h . Htg way,[lolfel,9oro,. _ NH, 03H94 . .

.W1rey Sule 74

DOB . 9127/.193.eoP.L IC.4. . .QT?WA8271 . .

. (N[L1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F 5

Sex Racs

❑ COMM . VEH.

5

WRI IE OV C

Brnwn Brown

Height Weighl Color Halr Color Eyes

❑ COMM. DR. LIC. ❑ IIAZ. MAT.

AT. .

.350. Governor . Wentworth Hicjhway Wolfeboro, NH . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a

0

0

o,e~a,l A.M.

ON TI113 .13thDAY OF NP:!qrP4er. . . . . . . . YR .2.Q9 . at. . . . . . . . . . . PM.

on/at in said county and state, did commit the offense of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Vitiiaticut of. PX-c teC1iXe .Or11r:t . . . . . contra ry to RSA . .173 ; 13,79 .

and the laws of New Hampshire for which the defendant should be held to answer, in

tllat the defendant di d

knowingly violate a stalking order issued by Judge James

O'Neil on November 12, 2003, by writing a letter to Norman

Bolduc on November 13, 2003, knowing she was enjoined from

having any contact by any means to all members of the Maloney

family, which Bolduc is a member .

again te pence and 'gnity_qf th Sln e

e .o iC CJ

;g . .R .• O'Srien. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wo

Personally appeared the above named co mplainant and made (tt{h IIlat II>< c

comnlainl hv Itim/her subscrihed is . in his(her helief. nie .

.

.'JP,e~ c'I n~r iYa n

Aoc 101 wa Pw arnn 1 .11!IPT P.npv

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 33 of 67
NARRATIVE FOR PATROLMAN JAMES O'BRIEN 12/29/200 3

Ref : 03-5-AR

'n Sunday, December 28, 2003, at approximately 1 :50 p.m., Senior Patrolman Charles Hamilton and I went to

50 Governor Wentworth Highway to execute an arrest warrant o n

JOSPEHINE AMATUCCI 9/27/1938

350GOVERNOR WENTWORTH HWY

WOLFEBORO, NH 03894

569-2429.

he warrant was for a violation of a Protective Order pursuant to a final Stalking Order issued by Judge James

iNei1 ofthe Carroll County Superior Court on November 12, 2003 . The warrant was made effective December

, 2003, by Judge Robert Varney.

,t APPROXIMATELY 2:05 p.m.,AMATUCCI was arrested without incident. I placed the handcuffs on her,

ouble locked, and checked for tightness. AMATUCCI was then escorted to the police cruiser .

JvIATUCCI was transported to the Carroll County House of Corrections and relased to staff. AMATUCCI

sked HAMILTON and I to go back to her reseidence to unlock her residence as her son was coming from

4assachusetts. HAMILTON unlcoked the door and left the key inside the residence as asked by AMATUCCI.

:ase closed .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 34 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

CARROLL, SS

SUPPORTING AFFIDAVIT for Request to ISSUE ARREST WARRAN T

December 02, 2003 WPD #03-45 3

And I, SRO kxx kjp.'CY\SM a (Justice of the Peace within

and for the State of New Hampshir (Justice of the District Court for Southern

Carroll County) have personally examined the information contained in the above

affidavit, and have orally examined the above applicant . Based upon such information I

conclude that there (is) (-is-noty--sufficient probable cause for je is uance of the

Arrest Warrant sought . Therefore, the arrest warrant is (grante and th e

Arrest Warrant (is) e .4-.. . issued .

Official Title

Probable Cause Is defined as: 'An apparent state of facts found to exist' upon reasonable Inquiry

which would Induce a reasonably Intelligent and prudent man to believe, In a criminal case , that the

accused person had committed the crime charged.

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 35 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

DISTRICT COIIRT of SOUTHERN CARROLL COUNT Y

WARRANT

NO

CARROLL, SS

To the Sheriff of any County in the State., or his deputy or any Police Officer

of any City or Town within the State :

WHEREAS : James O'Brien of the Wo] .feboro Police Department

Wolfecro, New Hampshire, in the County of Carroll has exhibited to me ,

p k kq~O vu\ _ a Justice of the District

Court for Southern Ca 11 County in the County of Carroll, his complaint ,

upon oath charging the crime of

Violation of Protective Order , 173 : B- 9

agains t- Josephine S Amatucci , DOB : 09/27/1938

of 350 Gov Wentworth Hwy, Wolfeboro NH 03894

in the County of Carrol l

WE COMMAND YOU to take Josephine S Ama c i DOB : 09/27/193 8

(if found to be in your precinct) and ri g/her before the District Courr o f

Southern Carroll County .

Dated December 0,, 200 3

Justice of the District Court fo_ Southern Carroll Count y

CARROLL, SS /a ,"'3-, ij7 _ 2003

I have arrested Josephine S Amatucci, DOB : 09/27/193 6

and now have her before the District Court of Southern Carroll County, as

commanded .

Name of Officer

Title of Office r

WPD 403-453

DEC 3 1 2003

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 36 of 67
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Carrol l

To : New Hampshire Public Defender

408 Union Avenue

Laconia, NH 03246

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT

96 Water Village Road - Box

Ossipee, NH 0386 4

603 539-456 1

District Cour t

( 1 APR 2 2 200 4

State Vs . Josephine S . Amatucci

Docket No . 03-CR-0270 8

NOTICE OF HEARING - CRIMINAL

The above entitled se as been scheduled for the following :

Date : 4/30/2004 At : So Carroll Cty District Court

Time :', 1 :00 pm 96 Water Village Rd

Room 2

Ossipee , NH 03864

For : Motion Hearing Violation of Protective Order ; Penalt y

If you are charged with a motor vehicle violation, other than DWI, and

are unable to appear or wish to change your plea to guilty or no

contest, you must notify the court in writing at least ten (10) days

prior,to the above date . You should send a copy of your notification

to the prosecutor . The court will inform you of the proper procedure .

When 6 person pleads guilty or is convicted after trial the court will

require all fines imposed to be paid in full immediately .

Please advise clients, witnesses, and others that it is a class B

felony to carry a firearm or other deadly weapon as defined in

RSA 625 :11,V in a courtroom or area used by a court .

FAILURE TO APPEAR OR PROPERLY OBTAIN A CONTINUANCE

BY THE COURT MAY RESULT IN AN ORDER FOR YOUR ARREST .

04/15/2004 /s/ Jean M . Flayhan

Date Clerk of Court

RSA 599 - 1-c : Any person charged with any violation may, at least 5 (five) days prior to trial, request the district

or municipal court that a sound recording be kept of all proceedings In the trial . If such a request is made, the

district or municipal court shall make the sound recording at no cost to the person requesting it .

RSA 502 A1 2 1-C : If you are charged with a Class R misdemeanor you are entitled to a eound recording of the proceedInge at the state ' s expense . You must make a w ri tten request to the clerk for a sound recording at least five days

prior to Any hearing .

(EMD)

cc : Wolfeboro Police Dept . James Godron, Esq .

AOC Form CICRPOIO ( Rev . 03 / 24/1999)

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 37 of 67
PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT

New Hampshire Public Defender i

406 UNION AVE ., LACONIA, NH 0324 6

Ms . Josephine Amatucci

P.O. Box 27 2

Wolfeboro Falls, NH 03896

TELEPHONE : (603) 524-1631 FAX : (603) 524-165 2

May 17, 200 4

RE : State v . Josephine Amatuccl, Docket #: 03-CR-2708

Dear Josephine:

I am writing to summarize the dispositi of our case . As you will recall, you

appeared in Ossipee District Court on A or cheduled motion hearing on a

misdemeanor charge

)

f Violation of Stalking Order. After the hearing, the Court

dismissed the charge against you . Th ea u will not be prosecuted for that

charge.

As you know, please be advised that under the current status of the stalking order,

Norman Bolduc would be included as a relative of Pauline Maloney . Please do not have

any further correspondence with any of them until the issues are resolved at your hearing

in Belknap County Superior Court . If any legal action needs to be taken, I would ensure

that you consult with an attorney to file pleadings on your behalf rather than effectuating

any contact through yourself. I would urge you to contact me prior to instituting any action

so I can clarify any criminal issues that may exist surrounding contact .

I wish you the best of luck . If I can be of any further assistance, please do not

hesitate to contact me .

/ e Friedman

N .H. Public Defender

JF/tsp

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 38 of 67
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carroll Superior Court

96 Water Village Road - Box 3

Ossipee, NH 0386 4

603 539-220 1

NOTICE OF DECISION

JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI

PO BOX 27 2

WOLFEBORO FALLS NH 0389 6

03-E-0080 Pauline Maloney v Josephine Amatucci

E

m PLAINTIFF'S

a EXHIBIT

Enclosed please find a copy of the Court's Order dated 5/14/2004

relative to :

Further Order on Stalking Petition

copy attached

05/17/2004 Samuel Farrington

Clerk of Court

Cc : Pauline Malone y

AOC Form SUCPO50 (Rev . 09/27/2001)

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 39 of 67
't1r 5tate of NPfu ampst trn

CARROLL COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

JOSEPHINE AMATUCCI

V.

PAULINE MALONEY

03-E-OB1

and

PAULINE MALONEY

V.

JOSPEHINE AMATTUCI

03-E-080

ORDER

Further hearing held in reference to the two Stalking Petitions submitted by the

respective parties in District Court which were transferred without rulings to this Court by

Order (dated 07-10-03-Varney-J .). Subsequent to offers of proof by the parties

representing themselves pro se, the Court renders the following determination(s).

By way of brief background, subsequent to a hearing held on November 12, 2003,

an Order encompassing what was deemed to be the agreement of the parties was

directed whereby the parties were enjoined from having any contact or communication

with the other respective party by an means or with that party's relatives or members of

the party's household . At this hearing, the party-Josephine Amatucci indicates that the

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 40 of 67
agreement encompassed the "family" as opposed to the party's relatives or members of

that party's household .

Accordingly, by way of clarification, if same is necessary, the Court directs the

following provision(s) :

1) That the parties are enjoined from having anv contact or communication with the

other respective party by an y means or with that parties' family . This Order shall remain in

effect pending further Order of the Court . Further, this Order shall not preclude an

attorney for any of the respective parties from having contact with the other respective

party for legitimate purposes related to counsel's representation of said party .

All earlier Orders, not inconsistent with the above, shall remain in full force and

effect.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: s i4

JA S D. O'NEILL, III

Presiding Justice

2

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 41 of 67
A/I

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 42 of 67
Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 43 of 67
Family definition of Family . What is Family? Meaning of Family . What does Family mea . . . Page I of 4

Dictionaries : ~General '(Compuling Medical Legal WEncyclopedi a

Ads by Googl e

Meet Single

Parents Free

Single Parents

Looking for

Partners Find the

Right Romantic

Partner

wvnv singlepadneis co m

Dating Rich, Cute

Single$

Meet hundreds of

thousands of

effluent, gorgeous

singles now.

wiM i MillionaireMatch rb r

Single Parents -

Pico

Dating Ads Galore

- Get a Date Now

Make New

Connections. Join

Free. -

slngleparentsmatcherco n

Meet_Single

parents Here

Free guest profile,

photo gallery,

more. Meet single

parents now!

w SingleParentsMinglr

Family I, / Word: family Word

PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT

j LookItup

FamTiy

Noun 1 . family • a social unit living together; "he moved his family to Virginia"; "it was a

good Chr sTiari7iousehold" ;-1 Waited until the whole house was asleep'; "the

teacher asked how many people made up his home "

Ihousehold, menage, house, hom e

conjugal family, nuclear family - a family consisting of parents and their children

and grandparents of a marital partne r

Iextended family - a family consisting of the nuclear family and their blood

relatives

Ifosler family - the family of a fosterlin g

foster home - a household in which an orphaned or delinquent child is placed

I(usually by a social-service agency )

I menage a lrois - household for three, an arrangement where a married couple

and a lover of one of them live together while sharing sexual relation s

social unit, unit - an organization regarded as part of a larger social group; 'the

coach said the offensive unit did a good job"; "after the batlle the soldier had

trouble rejoining his unit"

2 . family - primary social group ; parents and children ; "he wanted to have a good

job before starting a family"

Ifamily

IKingiowp, kindre4 kinahJP g[oup, clan, kin, tdte - group of people related by

blood or marriage

Imates, couple., match - a pair of people who live together, "a married couple

from Chicago "

Iman aad wife, marfled_couple, marriage - two people who are married to each

other, "his second marriage was happier than the first" ; "a married couple

without love"

IMarx Brothers - a family of United States comedians consisting of four brothers

with an anarchic sense of humo r

I

child, kid - a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age ; "they had three

children"; "they were able to send their kids to college"

parent - a father or mother; one who begets or one who gives birth to or nurtures

and raises a child; a relative who plays the role of guardian

sib, sibling - a person's brother or sister

3

. family - people descended from a Common ancestor; "his family has lived in

Massachusetts since the Mayflower "

~kinfolk. kinsfQIk, phratry, family_line, sept, fol k

people - members of a family line ; "his people have been farmers for

Igenerations"; "are your people still alive7'

Ihomefolk - the people of your home locality (especially your own family) ; "he

wrote his homefolk every day"

Ihouse - aristocratic family line; "the House of York"

Idynasty - a sequence of powerful leaders in the same famil y

Igens, name - family based on male descent ; "he had no sons and there was no

one to carry on his name"

http://www.Ihefreedictionary .com/family 2/24/2004

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 44 of 67
what nation and reli1ion soever they be, Christian, Jews, Mahomltes, or Turks, and heathen," to join in a great fellowship of peace,

the Family of Love, giving up all contention

over dogma and s cking to be incorporated

into the body of Christ.

Niclaes gained many followers, among them

the great publisher Christophe Plantin, who

surreptitiously printed a number of Niclaes'

works. Niclaes apparently made two visits to

England, where his sect had the lar$est following. Elizabeth I issued a proclamation against

the Family of Love in 1580, and James I believed it to have been the source of Puritanism .

The sed did not survive after the Restoration

of the English monarchy in 1660, but according to George Fox, a British preacher and the

founder of the Society of Friends (or Quakers), some remaining Familists later became

associated with the Quakers.

Famille, Pacte de English FAMILY CoMPACT, any of three defensive alliances (1733 .

1743, and 1761) between France and Spain,

so called because both nations were ruled by

members of the Bourbon family. The Pactes

de Famille generally had the elfect of involving Spaln in European and colonial wan on

the side of the French Bourbons (e.g., the

Seven Years' War, 1756-63) . Spain also followed French policy in the U.S. War of independence (1775-83). After the outbreak of

the French Revolution, Charles IV of Spain

sought to intervene to save Louis XVI and,

after hli execution, engaged Spain in the war

of 1793-95, ending in the humiliating Peace

of Basel. After the restoration of the French

Bourbons In 1814-15, the French intervened

in 1823 to reftpre the authority of Ferdinand

VII of Spain .

famllle rose (French : "rose family-), group of

Chinese porcelain wares, especially developed

duri ng lhe reign of Yung-cheng (1722-35) in

the Ch'ing dynasty, characterized by decoration painted in opaque overglaze colours of

the rose family, chiefly shades of pink and

kamise rose porcelain vase of yang Isel

wars, Ch' ing dynasty , Yung-cheng reign

(1122 -35); In the Victoria and Albert

Museeum . Londo n

ey mnwr a n. velaw .. a wn Y„ra,.". Lum ,

carmine. These colours are known to the Chinese as )nng Is'ai ("foreign colours") because

they were first introduced from Europe (c.

1685). By the time of the reign of Yungcheng they were favoured over the translucent famille verte overglaze colours previously

used .

famllle verte (French : "green family"), group

of Chinese porcelain wares made during the

K'ang-hsi period (1661-1722) of the Ch'ing

dynasty and characterized by decoration

painted in a colour range that includes yellow,

blue, red, purple, and green, the latter sometimes used for the ground . The verte palette

Famllle varte porcelain Jardinlere, ChIng dynasty.

Kang -hal reign ( 1581-1 1 22): In the Museum of Fine

Ana, Bosto n

By mvl.,y d It . Iaaa t a IYa hn, epb,, tt 1 r24[il m

used with a yellow ground is famille jaune ;

used with a rich greenish -black ground, it is

famille noire .

famlly: see under desc riptive word (e.g., extended family ; joint family; nuclear Family),

except as below .

family, a group of persons unit by the ties

of marriage, blood or adoption , nstitutin

a sin e householdand interacting wr eac

other in theiF respective social positions of

husband and wife, mother and father , son and

daughter. brother and sister. The family group

is often confused with the household because

it constitutes a j t e hgxhold, but boarders

and rooment shanng a common residence may

be included In a household. The family is also

sometimes confused with a kindred because

of the unity of blood lines, but a kind red may

be divided Into several households . Frequently

the family is not differentiated from the marriage pair, but the essence of the family group

is the parent-child relationship, which may be

absent from many marriage pairs . In its institutional aspects the family is also frequently

confused with the institution of marriage, the

complex of cust 6 rh9 hguBling the sexual ttlations between the cohabiting pair of adults

within the family group . Marri age defines the

procedures for establishing and terminating

the husband-wife re lation, as well as the reciproeal obligations and the accepted restrictions

upon its personnel.

A brief treatment of family follows. For

full tre atment, see MACaoPAeoIA : Family and

Kinship ; Famil yy Law,

A family, in the simples t terms , is the union

of a man and a woman ( almost always from

diflerent lineages and not re lated by blood)

along with their of9pring, usually living in a

p rivate and sepatate dwelling This type of livIng arrangement, more speci fi cally known as

the nuclear family , is believed to be the oldest

of the various types of families in existence .

Sometimes the nuclear family is extended to

include not only the parents and the unmarried child ren livingg at home but also childre n

that have married , their spouses, and their

of'sp ring ; such an arrangement is called an

extended family .

Socioeconomic aspects of marriage . The

family performs vanous valuab ic functions for

its membe rs . Perhaps most impo rtant of all, it

provides for emotional and psychological security, pa rticularly through the warmth, love,

and companionship that living together generates between spouses and in turn between

them and their child re n . The family also provides a valuable social and political function

by institutionalizing proc reation and by providing guidelines fot the regulation of sexual conduct. The family additionally provides

such other socially beneficial functions as the

re a ring and socialization of child ren, along

with such humanitarian activities as caring for

its members when they are sick or disabled.

On the economic side, the family provides

food, shelter, clothing. and physical security

for its members, many of whom may be too

673 family

young or too old to provide for the basic

necess ities of lire themselves . Finally 7, on the

social side, the family may se rve to promote

order and stability within society as a whole .

Historically, in most cultures, the family has

been patriarchal , or male -dominated . Perhaps

the most striking example of the male -dominated family is the desc ription of the family

f

ven in the Old Testament . whe re the male

eads of the clans were allowed to have several

wives as well as concubines. As a general rule,

the women of the Old Testament had a rather

low status . In Roman times the family was

still patriarchal , but polygamy was not practiced, and in general the status of women was

somewhat Improved over that suggested in the

Old Testament, although they still could not

manage their own affai rs. The Roman family

was an extended one . The famiy as it existed

in medieval Europe was male-dominated and

extended .

The Industrial Revolution and the accompanying urbanization spawned -and continues

to spawn-many changes in family structu re.

Industrialization and urbanization prompted

a sharp change in life and occupational styles .

Many people, particularly unmarried youlhs,

left the farms and went to urban centre s to

become industrial workers. This process led

to the dissolution of many extended fafnilies .

The modern family that has emerged since

the Industrial Revolution is rather different

from that which existed earlier. For instance,

patriarchal rule has slowly given way to a

greater equality between the sexes. Similarly,

ste reotyping of male and female roles within

the famtly is breaking down . No longer is caring for the home and children the exclusive

duty of the female, nor earning a living and

pu rsuing a public life the exclusive domain of

the male . The structure of the family is also

changing in that some couples choose not to

marry legally and instead elect to have their

children out of wedlock ; many of these informal relationships tend to be of sho rt duration,

and this has led to a rapid increase in the

number of one-parent households.

The modern family is today more of a consuming as opposed to a producing unit, and

the members of the family work away from

home rather than at home. Public autho rities,

prima rily governmental ones, have ass umed

many of the functions that the family used to

provide, such as caring for the aged and the

sick, educating the young, and providing for

recreation . Technological advancements have

made it possible for couples to decide if and

when they want to have children ,

Family law. Family law va ries from culture

to culture , but in its broadest application it

defines the legal relationships among family

membe rs as well as the relationships between

families and society at large . Some of the

important questions dealt with in family law

include the terms and parameters of marri age,

the status of children , and the succession of

property from one generation to the next . In

nearly eve ry case , family law rep resents a delicate balance between the interests of society

and the protection of individual rights.

The general rule in marriages until modern

times was the legal transfer of dependency, that

of the bride, from father to groom . Not only

did the groom ass ume guardianship , he usually ass umed control over all of his wife's a ffairs . Often, the woman lost any legal identity

through marriage , as was the case in English

common law . There have been exceptions to

this practice . Muslim women , for instance.

had considerable control over their own personal prope rt y . The concept of dowries, an

amount of money or prope rty given to the

husband with the b ride in compensation for

her dependency, has been practiced in many

countri es.

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 45 of 67
PLAINTIFF'S

EXHIBIT

17-4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Josephine Amatucci

V .

Charles Hamilton, et al .

Civil No . 05-cv-259-SM

O R D E R

Before the Court is Josephine Amatucci's complaint' alleging

that the defendants have violated her Fourth and Fourteenth

Amendment rights to due process by subjecting her to false arres t

'Amatucci has filed a complaint (document no . 1), and three

documents titled "Addendum to Complaint" (document nos . 7, 9 &

11) . Although not strictly in compliance with the court's local

rules governing "Motions to Amend," see Rule 15 .1 of the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire ("LR"), I will accept these four documents in the

aggregate as the complaint in this matter . Amatucci is advised,

however, that all further amendments must comport with the local

rule, which states :

(a) A party who moves to amend a filing shall (i)

attach the proposed amended filing to the motion to

amend, (ii) identify in the motion or a supporting

memorandum any new factual allegations, legal claims,

or parties, and (iii) explain why any new allegations,

claims, or parties were not included in the original

filing .

(b) Any amendment to a pleading , whether filed as a

matter of course or upon a motion to amend, shall

reproduce the entire filing as amended and may not

incorporate any prior filing by reference , except by

leave of court .

LR 15 .1 .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 46 of 67
and detention . Because Amatucci is proceeding both pro se and in

forma pauperis, the matter is before the Court for preliminary

review to determine whether the complaint states any claim upon

which relief might be granted . See 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2) ;

United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire

Local Rule 4 .3(d)(1)(B) .

As fully discussed in the Report and Recommendation issued

simultaneously with this Order, and without further comment on

the merits of the claims, I find that Josephine Amatucci has

stated a claim upon which relief may be granted for false arrest

and detention against defendants James O'Brien and Charles

Hamilton .' Accordingly, I order that the complaint (document

nos . 1, 7, 9 & 11) be served on those Defendants . Plaintiff has

already submitted summons forms for each of the defendants upon

whom service is authorized . The Clerk's office is directed to

issue the summonses against defendants O'Brien and Hamilton and

to forward to the United States Marshal for the District of New

Hampshire (the "U .S . Marshal's office") the summonses and copies

of the complaint (document nos . 1, 7, 9 & 11), the Report an d

2In the Report and Recommendation issued this date, I have

recommended the dismissal of all other claims and defendants in

the complaint .

2

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 47 of 67
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

Josephine Amatucc i

v . Civil No. 05-cv-259-SM

Charles Hamilton, et al .

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Before the Court is Josephine Amatucci's complaint' alleging

a number of claims, including her claim that the defendants have

violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due

'Amatucci has filed a complaint (document no . 1), and three

documents titled "Addendum to Complaint" (document nos . 7, 9 &

11) . Although not strictly in compliance with the court's local

rules governing "Motions to Amend," see Rule 15 .1 of the Local

Rules of the United States District Court for the District of New

Hampshire ("LR"), I will accept these four documents in the

aggregate as the complaint in this matter . Amatucci is advised,

however, that all further amendments must comport with the local

rule, which states :

(a) A party who moves to amend a filing shall (i)

attach the proposed amended filing to the motion to

amend, (ii) identify in the motion or a supporting

memorandum any new factual allegations, legal claims,

or parties, and (iii) explain why any new allegations,

claims, or parties were not included in the original

filing .

(b) Any amendment to a pleading, whether filed as a

matter of course or upon a motion to amend, shall

reproduce the entire filing as amended and may not

incorporate any prior filing by reference, except by

leave of court .

LR 15 .1 .

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 48 of 67
process by subjecting her to false arrest and detention . Because

Amatucci is proceeding both pro se and in forma pauperis, the

matter is before the Court for preliminary review to determine

whether the complaint states any claim upon which relief might be

granted . See 28 U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2) ; LR 4 .3(d)(1)(B) .

Standard of Review

Under this Court's local rules, when a nonincarcerated

plaintiff commences an action both pro se and in forma pauperis,

the magistrate judge is directed to conduct a preliminary review

and to prepare a report and recommendation determining whether

the complaint or any portion thereof should be dismissed because :

the allegation of poverty is untrue, the action is

frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief under 28

U .S .C . § 1915(e)(2) ; or it fails to establish subject

matter jurisdiction under Fed . R . Civ . P . 12(b)(1) .

LR 4 .3(d)(1)(B) . In conducting the preliminary review, the Court

construes pro se pleadings liberally . See Ayala Serrano v .

Lebron Gonzales , 909 F .2d 8, 15 (lst Cir . 1990) (following

Estelle v . Gamble , 429 U .S . 97, 106 (1976) to construe pro se

pleadings liberally in favor of the pro se party) . "The polic y

behind affording pro se plaintiffs liberal interpretation is tha t

if they present sufficient facts, the court may intuit th e

2

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 49 of 67
correct cause of action, even if it was imperfectly pled ." Ahmed

v . Rosenblatt , 118 F .3d 886, 890 (lst Cir . 1997), cert . denied ,

Ahmed v . Greenwood , 522 U .S . 1148 (1998) .

At this preliminary stage of review, all factual assertions

made by the plaintiff and inferences reasonably drawn therefrom

must be accepted as true . See Aulson v . Blanchard , 83 F .3d 1, 3

(lst Cir . 1996) (stating the "failure to state a claim" standard

of review and explaining that all "well-pleaded factua l

averments," not bald assertions, must be accepted as true) . This

review ensures that pro se pleadings are given fair and

meaningful consideration . See Eveland v . Dir . of C .I .A . , 843

F .2d 46, 49 (lst Cir . 1988) .

Background

Josephine Amatucci is a resident of Wolfeboro, New

Hampshire . She has lived at her property there for twelve years .

During that time, Amatucci has waged an ultimately successful

campaign to have the Town of Wolfeboro recognize her right to

restrict parking in front of her residence, although she lives on

a road that provides public beach parking . Prior to receiving

official sanction for her parking rights, however, Amatucci

frequently found herself at odds with both the local police an d

3

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 50 of 67
her neighbors regarding the location of parked cars in relation

to her property . On more than one occasion, Amatucci found

herself requesting help from the police to prevent cars from

blocking her driveway, but not receiving the requested help

because the police were under the impression that Amatucci was

attempting to control access to public parking . Ultimately,

these and other run-ins involving the neighbors' use of her

property resulted in Amatucci having a contentious relationship

with her neighbors and the Wolfeboro Police Department .

The August 16, 2002 Inciden t

On August 16, 2002, at 5 :00 p .m ., Amatucci noticed that

Kelly Fitzgerald, a relative of one of her neighbors, parked her

car in a manner that blocked Amatucci's driveway . Amatucci asked

Fitzgerald to move her car, but Fitzgerald refused . Amatucci

called the police . A boy who was a member of Amatucci's

neighbor's family, and who appeared to be too young to legally

drive, then got into Fitzgerald's car and attempted to move it .

In the process, the boy hit a cinder block that Amatucci had

placed on the ground to protect people from an iron mailbox rod

she had placed in the ground but that did not yet have a mailbox

on it . When the boy hit the cinder block, it shattered ,

4

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 51 of 67
resulting in a small piece of the block lodging itself in th e

car's wheel well so that the car couldn't move . When Amatucci

expressed her amusement at this turn of events, four members of

Amatucci's neighbor's family, including Fitzgerald, came onto

Amatucci's driveway and proceeded to kick and punch Arnatucci and

throw stones at her .

Amatucci got away from the individuals who were assaulting

her and ran inside her house to call the Wolfeboro Police

Department for assistance . In response to her call, Officer

Charles Hamilton responded to the scene while the neighbors were

still present in Amatucci's driveway . Amatucci told Hamilton

that she wanted to press criminal charges against her attackers .

Instead of assisting her as a crime victim, however, Amatucci

reports that Hamilton yelled at her . Because of Hamilton's

reaction, Amatucci again called the Wolfeboro Police Department

and spoke with Wolfeboro Police Chief Brian Black who seemed to

be sympathetic to Amatucci's complaints and offered to help

resolve the difficulties that Amatucci had with Hamilton .

However, Amatucci claims that Black did not follow through on his

promise to assist her and, in fact, she did not hear from him

again regarding this matter .

5

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 52 of 67
The Wolfeboro Police subsequently took the position that

Amatucci was the aggressor against her neighbors and sought to

prosecute her for damage to Fitzgerald's car and for assault .

Hamilton obtained a warrant to arrest Amatucci on those charges

and, on November 7, 2002, Hamilton entered Amatucci's home and

arrested her on criminal mischief and assault charges pursuant to

that warrant . 2

Amatucci claims that Hamilton must have failed to present

exculpatory evidence to the judge issuing the arrest warrant ,

specifically, Amatucci's version of events and the statement of

an impartial witness to the events of August 16, 2002 . Further,

Amatucci alleges that Hamilton falsely obtained the warrant by

stating to the judge that a cinder block had been placed on the

wheel well by Amatucci, damaging the car, when in fact he had

simply seen a fragment of cinder block inside the wheel well

after the fact, as Hamilton later confirmed .

Amatucci states that after being arrested, she went to the

Wolfeboro Police Department to confront Black regarding he r

2The complaint alleges initially that Hamilton was not in

possession of a valid warrant . However, Amatucci has appended an

affidavit from Judge Varney to her complaint stating that the

warrant was, in fact, signed and issued by Judge Varney on

October 30, 2002 while he was at his law offices .

6

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 53 of 67
objection to being prosecuted . Amatucci claims that Black did

not answer her and Lhat Officer James O'Brien was present and

that he stood by during the confrontation with his hand resting

on his gun . Amatucci further alleges that the prosecutor did not

subpoena the sole exculpatory witness to testify at Amatucci's

trial . Although the complaint is unclear as to why, it appears

that the charges against Amatucci were ultimately dismissed . 3

The November 2003 Inciden t

Amatucci's friction with her neighbors was not limited to

Kelly Fitzgerald's relatives . Amatucci also had difficulty with

neighbors on the other side of her property, Pauline and Robert

Maloney, regarding neighborhood parking . Further, Amatucci has

had disputes with Norman Bolduc, who lives behind her, regarding

two outbuildings Amatucci claims that she owns but that are

located on Bolduc's property as well as Bolduc's parking his gol f

'Amatucci alleges that Fitzgerald and other witnesses failed

to appear in Court . Amatucci also submits a statement from

another individual indicating that the witnesses failed to appear

to prosecute the case against Amatucci . However, Amatucci has

also submitted copies of two court orders with her complaint that

indicate that her "record of attempted criminal mischief" and her

"record of simple assault" were annulled on June 23, 2003 . I

presume that it is her arrest and charge that were annulled from

her record, since Amatucci claims no conviction was ever entered

in these matters .

7

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 54 of 67
cart in such a manner as to infringe Amatucci's property . Bolduc

is Pauline Maloney's brother .

According to Amatucci, her difficulties with the Maloneys

arose because the Maloneys repeatedly parked in such a way so as

to block Amatucci's driveway access . Amatucci claims the

Maloneys parked this way to retaliate against Amatucci for

contacting the police when the Maloneys' grandchildren rode golf

carts on Amatucci's driveway late at night .

Amatucci alleges that she has been subjected to ongoing

harassment from the Maloneys over the years, but the police have

done nothing to protect Amatucci's right not to be harassed .

Finally, the police told Amatucci to go to court and attempt to

obtain a "stalking order" against the Maloneys, which Amatucci

did . The Maloneys simultaneously sought a "stalking order"

against Amatucci . Amatucci and the Maloneys appeared in the

Carroll County Superior Court on November 12, 2003, for a hearing

on their mutual requests . Because both parties desired to have

no contact with each other, the judge, from the bench, authorized

orders restraining both parties from contacting or communicating

with each other or each other's families . Amatucci interprete d

8

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 55 of 67
the word "family" to mean that she was not to contact the

Maloneys or any member of their household .

Prior to the November 12 hearing, Amatucci had sought the

assistance of legal counsel to resolve the outbuilding issue with

Bolduc . Because the lawyers had not yet acted on her behalf,

Amatucci took it upon herself to write a letter to Bolduc

insisting on payment for damages Bolduc had caused to the

outbuildings in order to avoid litigation over the issue .

Amatucci brought the letter with her to Court on November 12,

thinking that Bolduc might appear in court with the Maloneys .

When Bolduc did not appear, Amatucci mailed the letter to Bolduc

on November 13, 2003 .

On November 13, 2003, the Superior Court issued a written

Order on the requests for stalking orders . The written order

prohibited Amatucci and the Maloneys from contacting o r

communicating with each other or each other's relatives .

Amatucci received this written Order on November 15, 2003, two

days after she had mailed the letter to Bolduc .

On November 18, 2003, Pauline Maloney and Bolduc took

Amatucci's letter to the Wolfeboro Police Department seeking

Amatucci's prosecution for violating the Superior Court's order .

9

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 56 of 67
On December 29, 2003, defendants O'Brien and Hamilton arrested

Amatucci pursuant to an arrest warrant for violating the stalking

order by writing to Bolduc .

Amatucci claims that O'Brien and Hamilton did not have facts

supporting probable cause to arrest her to present to the issuing

judge in support of the arrest warrant . Amatucci alleges that

the officers failed to include all of the material facts to the

issuing judge in support of their request for an arrest warrant .

Amatucci alleges that to properly obtain an arrest warrant, the

officers would have had to aver that Amatucci knew, on November

13, 2003 when she sent the letter, that the stalking order

prohibited her from contacting the Maloneys' relatives, and not

just the members of their household . Accordingly, Amatucci

alleges that the defendant officers must have omitted the fact

that Amatucci, on November 13, 2003, had only been told not to

contact "family members" which was properly interpretable as

"household members ." Amatucci claims that if all of the material

facts known to O'Brien and Hamilton had been prseented to the

judge, the mens rea for the offense of knowingly violating a

court order would have been negated . Therefore, she alleges ,

10

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 57 of 67
probable cause would not have been established and a warrant

would not have issued .

Amatucci claims that at her arraignment on this matter,

Judge Varney advised the prosecuting officers that they would

have to prove a particular definition of "family" in order to

convict Amatucci . Amatucci alleges that giving this advice to

the officers was outside of the Judge's proper judicial capacity

and rendered Judge Varney a coconspirator in her false arrest and

detention .

Discussion'

A government official may be held personally liable under 4 2

U .S .C . § 1983 if, acting under color of state law, the official

caused the deprivation of a federal constitutional or statutory

right . Kentucky v . Graham , 473 U .S . 159, 166 (1985) .' Amatucc i

'The claims as identified and discussed herein will be

considered to be the claims raised in the complaint for all

purposes . If plaintiff disagrees with this identification of th e

claims, she must do so by filing a proper objection to this

Report and Recommendation or by properly filing a motion to amend

the complaint .

'42 U .S .C . § 1983 states, in relevant part :

Every person who, under color of any statute,

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any

State or Territory or the District of Columbia,

subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of

the United States or other person within th e

11

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 58 of 67
alleges that she was subjected to false imprisonment and

detention by O'Brien and Hamilton when they twice secured her

arrest pursuant to arrest warrants that, she claims, were

obtained by the defendant officers' failure to communicate

material exculpatory facts to the judge issuing the warrants .

Amatucci claims that these omissions resulted in the violation of

her Fourth Amendment rights as her person was seized by the

arresting officers pursuant to improperly obtained arrest

warrants . '

Amatucci further alleges claims against the remaining named

defendants to this action . Amatucci alleges that the Wolfeboro

police prosecutor, Dennis Davey, violated her constitutional due

process rights by failing to subpoena an exculpatory witness t o

jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any

rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the

Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party

injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or

other proper proceeding for redress . . . .

6The Fourth Amendment provides :

The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects, against

unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be

violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon

probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation,

and particularly describing the place to be

searched, and the persons or things to be seized .

12

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 59 of 67
testify at Amatucci's trial . Amatucci also alleges that Judge

Robert Varney violated her constitutional rights by giving advice

to the Wolfeboro Police Department, an act which she claims lies

outside the judicial function . Finally, Amatucci seeks to state

a claim against Wolfeboro Police Chief Brian Black, the Wolfeboro

Police Department, and the Town of Wolfeboro, for improperly

training and supervising the police officer defendants in this

case, directly resulting in a violation of Amatucci's rights by

those officers . I will discuss and address these claims in turn .

1 . False Arrest and Detention Claims Against O'Brien and

Hamilto n

Presuming the proper issuance of a warrant by a judge in

this case, Amatucci's assertion is that the warrant was issued

based on the misleading impression left by defendants Hamilton

and O'Brien when they intentionally omitted material exculpatory

information from their warrant applications . "[T]he intentional

or reckless omission of material exculpatory facts from

information presented to a magistrate may . . . amount to a

Fourth Amendment violation ." Burke v . Town of Walpole , 405 F .3d

66, 81 (1st Cir . 2005) . When evaluating allegedly material

omissions from a warrant application, "recklessness may b e

13

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 60 of 67
inferred where the omitted information was critical to the

probable cause determination ." Id . (citations omitted) .

To support her allegation of a violation of her Fourth

Amendment rights, Amatucci has alleged that Hamilton

misrepresented the nature of the cinder block in Fitzgerald's

wheel well, omitted from his warrant application Amatucci's

version of events, and omitted the statement of a witness that

corroborated certain key elements of Amatucci's story . While

Amatucci has not filed a copy of the warrant application with her

complaint, she has filed a copy of Hamilton's incident report and

later admissions regarding the size and location of the cinder

block, the neutral witness statement and other documents that

demonstrate a basis for her assumption that material facts were

omitted from the warrant affidavit for the August 2002 arrest .

Accordingly, I find that Amatucci has stated the minimum facts

necessary to state a claim for a Fourth Amendment violation as it

relates to the November 7, 2002 arrest based on an improperly

obtained arrest warrant .

Amatucci has similarly stated her presumption that material

and exculpatory omissions were made by O'Brien and Hamilton to

obtain a warrant for her December 2003 arrest . Amatucc i

14

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 61 of 67
specifically alleges that because she had not received a written

order clarifying that she was not allowed to contact Bolduc at

the time she mailed him the November 13, 2003 letter, that a

truthful and complete recitation of the facts to the issuing

judge would have belied the fact that the state did not have

sufficient evidence of the mens rea for the crime of knowingly

violating a restraining order to support probable cause .

Amatucci claims that the warrant affidavit, which was not

submitted with the complaint, must have omitted the fact that

Amatucci had not yet received notice that contact with all of the

Maloneys' relatives was forbidden by the superior court order .

Amatucci has thus stated the minimum facts necessarv to

demonstrate a Fourth Amendment claim for false arrest and

detention against O'Brien and Hamilton for the December 2003

arrest .

In an Order issued simultaneously with this Report and

Recommendation, I will direct that the False Arrest and Detention

claim for the August 2002 arrest be served on Hamilton . In that

Order, I will also direct that a False Arrest and Detention claim

be served on both O'Brien and Hamilton for the December 2003

arrest .

15

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 62 of 67
2 . Prosecutorial Immunity

Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from suit under Section

1983 for actions taken within the scope of their prosecutorial

duties, even when those actions violate a plaintiff's

constitutional rights or the suit is premised on malicious

prosecution . Imbler v . Pachtman , 424 U .S . 409, 427 (1976) ; see

Celia v . O'Malley , 918 F .2d 1017, 1019 (1st Cir . 1990) . If the

challenged action of the prosecutor is "intimately associated

with the judicial phase of the criminal process," it is a

function to which absolute immunity applies . Imbler , 424 U .S . at

430 .

Here, Amatucci alleges that by failing to call a witness to

provide exculpatory testimony at trial, Davey violated her

constitutional rights . The decision as to what evidence to

present at trial is one that falls squarely within the

prosecutor's role in the judicial phase of a criminal trial .

Accordingly, Davey enjoys absolute immunity from suit for that

decision and I recommend that Davey be dismissed as a defendant

to this action .

3 . Judicial Immunit y

Judges are absolutely immune from suit for conduct within

their judicial capacities unless they act (1) outside the scop e

16

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 63 of 67
of their judicial capacity or (2) "in the complete absence of all

jurisdiction ." Mireles v . Waco , 502 U .S . 9, 11-12 (1991) ; Stump

v . Sparkman , 435 U .S . 349, 356 (1978) ; Boyd v . Biggers , 31 F .3d

279, 284 (5th Cir . 1994) . Amatucci attempts to state a claim

against Judge Varney for acting outside of his judicial capacity

by advising the prosecuting authority that they would have to

prove a particular definition of "family" in order to

successfully prosecute Amatucci . Although Amatucci characterizes

this statement as "advice" to the prosecuting authority, it

appears from the facts alleged by Amatucci, that Judge Varney was

simply clarifying that the state had the burden of proof for the

mens rea of the offense charged . Discussion of the elements of

an offense charged in his Court, or the burden of proof

applicable in a particular case, is clearly within a judge's

capacity and is a proper exercise of the judicial function .

Accordingly, I find that Judge Varney is absolutely immune from

liability in this action and should be dismissed as a defendant

to this action .

4 . Municinal Liabilit y

Municipalities and local government entities are "persons"

within the meaning of § 19B3 . See Monell v . Den't of Soc .

Servs . , 436 U .S . 658, 690 (1978) . Under New Hampshire law ,

17

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 64 of 67
towns, such as Wolfeboro, are considered local governmental

units . See N .H . Rev . Stat . Ann . ("RSA") 507-B :l (1997) (defining

"governmental unit" as "any political subdivision within the

state including any county, city, town . . ., but [not including]

the state or any department or agency thereof .") . In order to

maintain a claim against the town of Wolfeboro, or the Wolfeboro

Police Department, as a municipality under 42 U .S .C . § 1983, the

claim must be grounded upon an unconstitutional municipal custom

or practice and two requirements must be met . "First, the custom

or practice must be attributable to the municipality, i .e ., it

must be 'so well settled and widespread that the policymaking

officials of the municipality can be said to have either actual

or constructive knowledge of it yet did nothing to end the

practice ."' Miller v . Kennebec County , 219 F .3d B, 12 (1st Cir .

2000) (quoting Bordanaro v . Mcleod, 871 F .2d 1151, 1156 (1st

Cir .), cert . denied , Everett v . Bordanaro , 493 U .S . 820 (1989)) .

Second, the custom must have been the cause of and "the moving

force" behind the deprivation of constitutional rights . Id . at

1157 . Amatucci has not asserted any facts that demonstrate that

the town of Wolfeboro or the Wolfeboro Police Department engaged

in a custom or policy of allowing or enabling Wolfeboro police

officers to make material omissions in arrest warrant affidavits .

18

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 65 of 67
I find, therefore, that she has not stated a claim against the

town of Wolfeboro or its police department and I recommend that

they be dismissed as defendants to this action .

5 . Supervisorv Liabilit y

"Supervisory liability under § 1983 cannot be predicated on

a respondeat theory, but only on the basis of the supervisor's

own acts or omissions ." Aponte Matos v . Toledo Davila , 135 F .3d

182, 192 (1st Cir . 1998) . A supervisor must be either "a primary

actor involved in, or a prime mover behind, the underlying

violation ." Camilo-Robles v . ZZapata , 175 F .3d 41, 43-44 (1st

Cir . 1999) . There must be "an affirmative link, whether through

direct participation or through conduct that amounts to

condonation or tacit authorization ." Id . at 44 . Here, while

Amatucci has described facts that could be liberally construed to

allege that Black was supportive of Amatucci's arrest and

unwilling to resolve matters directly with Amatucci, she has not

alleged any facts which demonstrate that Black either directly

participated in, condoned, or authorized in any way, the improper

obtaining of an arrest warrant by the omission of material

exculpatory information . Accordingly, I cannot find that

Amatucci has alleged facts that support a cause of action agains t

19

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 66 of 67
Black, and I recommend that he be dismissed as a defendant fro m

this action .

Conclusion

For the reasons discussed herein, I recommend that al l

claims alleged against defendants Davey, Varney, Black, the town

of Wolfeboro, and the Wolfeboro Police Department, and Black be

dismissed from this action . In an Order issued simultaneously

with this Report and Recommendation, I will direct tha t

Amatucci's false arrest and detention claims be served against

defendants Hamilton and O'Brien .

Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be .

filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice . Failure to

file objections within the specified time waives the right to

appeal the district court's order . See Unauthorized Practice of

Law Comm . v . Gordon , 979 F .2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir . 1992) ; United

States v . Valencia-Copete , 792 F .2d 4, 6 (1st Cir . 19B6) .

s R . Muirhead

ed States Magistrate Judge

Date : January 20, 200 6

cc : Josephine Amatucci, pro s e

20

Case 1:06-cv-00225-JD Document 1-1 Filed 06/16/06 Page 67 of 67