Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

Town sues Resident for allegedly illegal occupancy

Orders of Notice have been filed in the case of Town of Atkinson v. Daniel Osborn, Trustee. This case seeks to evict the Osborns from their home at 8 Valcat ln. A hearing on this matter has been scheduled for March 23, 2010 at 9:00am in Brentwood. As many of you know the Osborns have been at the epicenter of controversy for most of the last year. First with the size of their home which allegedly exceeds the submitted plans, to it's lack of sprinklers, after agreeing to the sprinkler plan, to their alleged unauthorized taking of Carol Davis' land for their new driveway, not to mention the cutting into valcat ln. to lower the grade so as to gain the acceptance of the fire chief.

This couple has wreaked more havoc in town and amongst their neighbors than hurricane Katrina. They are currently being sued in Brentwood, by their neighbor, Mrs. Davis, who wants her land restored. That case went to hearing in December, at which the judge told Mrs. Osborn in no uncertain terms that she could continue with her construction project, but if Mrs. Davis proved her ownership of the land, the Osborns would be Ordered to restore the land to its original condition.

It seems that this show is going into extra episodes, as the story line expands and continues, we will be watching with avid interest.


Anonymous said...

I have been waiting to see what was going to be done about the Osborn's illegal occupancy. But it is what it is. It is illegal occupancy. An there is proof that she has been living there all along despite her lies. and tormenting all who live around her I Just hope the judge see's through her fakeness.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

The Osborns have a lot of experience in the courts. They are well known by the judges in Superior Court. My guess is they all know the amount of cases Osborns are involved in and what illegal things they have been doing. I think they will make the Osborns pay and pay big.

Time will tell the whole story, but I would not want to be in Osborn shoes today. It's tough to get way from the reputation they spent years creating, that will come back to bite them.

Couldn't happen to better people.


Anonymous said...

Not to be nosey, but how well off is Carol Davis? Shouldn't someone start a Carol Davis Legal Offense Fund? If the Horsebuns are rich and pratically live in court, she's gonna need all the help she can get. What all this shows is no private property is safe in Atkinson or NH for that matter. It's Mrs Davis today. Who's it gonna be tomorrow. Any one of us. This is how shitty things have become in our country.

Just My Humble Opinion

Anonymous said...

You are absolutely right this could not happen to better people. this just proves "some people are just idots." And think they can gedt away with anything just because there wallets are fat.Money cannot fix everything. THE Osborn's are a perfect example......
"YOU CAN'T FIX STUPID"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Selectmen have a flimsy case evicting someone from property they own under disputed circumstances. Your deed has powerful rights built in and you can't be kicked out due to politically motivated Selectmen.

I'll bet anyone $100 the town loses. I don't have to know every nitty gritty details. Its all in dispute and until the courts provide clarification on the dispute the Osborns aren't gettig kicked out.

Put your money where your mouth is you uneducated, uninformed big mouths.

LegalBeagle said...

I have followed this case with interest, read all of the Court filings in this case, and the Davis case, and looked up the relevant deeds, conveyances, and plot plans, and quite frankly I do not see how the Osborns plan to "prove" that they have a deeded right of way across Mrs. Davis' land.

The Osborn deed refers to a plot plan from the 1920's that shows only one right of way, that currently known as Valcat ln.

The right of way they seem to be referring to did not exist before 1995, and only exists on a plot plan drawing attached to Mrs. Davis' deed, however, this new right of way was never registered or conveyed to anyone.

As far as I can see, there is no way for the Osborns to prove that they, in fact, have a "deeded right of way" as they have been claiming.

I fail to see how this can turn out well for the Osborns, but this is why I love the law.

Anonymous said...

the osborn's are not the only one;s stealing land there;s two lot;s on the water that belong;s to the town. but don;t try to use them the masone;s will call the cop;s theyu have friend;s in town

Anonymous said...

That last post is bizarre. You are such a silly duck. Between your typing and total lack of knowledge, I imagine that you are just making this up to distract from the more egregious Osborn criminal trespass.

What two lots are owned by the town and what friends does "Mason" have in town. The town is coming down pretty hard on Mason.

I am guessing that the silly duck is you Maggie……..

Anonymous said...

LeagleBeagle, it has been months since you raised your hind leg here on the blog. Where have you been hiding? Is the ambulance chasing a little slow right now?

If this is such a “slam dunk” case, why hasn’t pro se Artus scored a win already? What do you see as so obvious that a judge doesn’t? If this were as trivial as you say it is, there would have been an injunction months ago? Maybe that’s why you are still chasing ambulances.

Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is and do some pro bono work for Mrs. Davis? Maybe you can steal a Paige from Leon’s playbook!

LegalBeagle said...

To the Anonymous, uninformed person at 11:15pm;

Mr. Artus is not "pro se" in the case of Davis v. Osborn. In fact, he is not even a party, and therefore can not win a "slam dunk" as you state.

There has not been a "win" as you state, yet because trial is scheduled for October, I believe.

Mrs. Davis has a competent attorney representing her interests, and bar ethics forbids me from representing her when she already has counsel.

And although the Court did not issue an immediate injunction in their motion hearing, the Court did inform Mrs. Osborn that she could continue with her construction project, but warned her that if Mrs. Davis proved her case, Mrs. Osborn would be ripping out everything she had done.

And page is not spelled with an "i" unless we are discussing my neice.

As Benjamin Franklin once famously said; "It is much better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

Anonymous said...

anon 3:30pm march 10th ....."Selectmen have a flimsy case evicting someone from property they own under disputed circumstances. Your deed has powerful rights built in and you can't be kicked out due to politically motivated Selectmen"

really is that true???!!!because if it is i am going to build myself a mcmansion and not follow code. not get an occupancy permit and just tell the town to go screw and save a shit load of money at the same time. i mean that's what maggie just said right she said your deed has powerful yahhhhhhh right gimme a break who thinks of this stuff .

Anonymous said...

Only Jack can save Maggie now. Work your magic, jack!

Anonymous said...

map 23 lot36 and map 23 lot27

Anonymous said...

look up the lot,s then take a ride and look to see if you can find them .There,s a beach a concrete dock, and all the tree,s were cut down along the water. It,s all on file at the state office.You can call EBEN LEWIS AT 559-1515 he handel the case

Anonymous said...

Sapia couldn't save a worm being put on his own fishing hook. He certainly can't save the Osborns from their own crooked behavior. They are a--hole friends but that's all they are. A--holes!


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It's amusing nobody had guts to take on the $100 bet. Lots of hot air, no substance.

It looks like the same 2-3 posters repeating their Osborne slander over and over and over and over. A few deer can make a lot of tracks.

Legal Beagle said they researched everthing but only speaks of deeds, plot plans etc. The Law Dog may be correct on that aspect but failed to address the town's case for eviction. I no understand your fear of the $100 bet since thou art so educated and I would presume therefore a person of means. Bad assumption on my end.

The gambler challenged blog posters to a $100 bet the town would lose its eviction case. Still no takers? Not even the Law Dog? The word blowhards comes to mind.

Anonymous said...

Somewhere I read that Maggie Osborn was so BRASH and ARROGANT as to tell Mrs. Davis that there was nothing she could do to stop Maggie from cutting the trees and paving a driveway across Davis property.

Apparently, OSBORNS intended to steal Mrs. Davis's land without paying her for it. They were going to use their money and influence in the town to take whatever they wanted whenever they wanted.

Poor Mrs. Davis in the meantime has to use her life savings to stave off the crooked, illegal advances of the Osborns, while taking care of sick dying sister, sick brother, grandchildren, and working twelve hours a day everyday.

This is what happens when townspeople allow so few people to run this town for so long. People like the Osborns make those political friends and use them to steal other people’s rights, property, and self esteem.

It's no wonder these new selectmen finally realized that if they didn't do something, more lawsuits would be coming their way. The fact that they threw the OSBORNS under the bus before Osborns could throw them under the bus speaks volumes.

Remember though, its not over till the "Fat Lady Sings". This could all be "Smoke and Mirrors". The selectmen could withdraw their suit at the last minute, just like they withdrew their "Cease and Desist" order on the Valcat issue. If they do, we must ALL watch to see who does it, and hold them responsible.

Another poster here was right when he said this could happen to ANY property owner in this town anytime. If we don't put a stop to the ZBA and people like the Osborns from stealing people’s property; anyone of us could be in court with the same problem.

The OSBORNS need to be MADE to pay MILLIONS for their illegal behavior, and made an example of for the future.

Whatever we do, suggest not having ANY business dealings with the OSBORNS now or in the future. They are lying, stealing, thieving, untrustworthy people. People to be scorned.

Perhaps now we know where they got all their money. Time to end their reign of terror once and for all.


Anonymous said...

You offering the same hundred dollar bet that the Osborn's won't lose the Carol Davis lawsuit? If so, is there any LIMIT as to how much one can bet?

Anonymous said...

Remember MAGGOT, TRUTH is not slander no matter how often you say it.

Anonymous said...

who is Mason ? I said Masone

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

jmho March 11, 2010 1:59 PM

you said 'It's no wonder these new selectmen finally realized that if
they didn't do something, more lawsuits would be coming their way.'

You make my point legal justification for eviction was not a basis for town's legal action. A political decision was.


Thanks for making my point. Town will lose. Mark today and my prediction. Then you'll have to come up with a new conspiracy about the Osborns.

I'm upping the ante. I'll bet $1,000 to any taker Atkinson loses the eviction case against the Osborns. Anyone got the guts?


Anonymous said...

Anon March 11, 2010 2:06 PM

You want a bet on the Davis lawsuit but not the eviction. Davis is not a town matter and has no impact on me or my taxes. Its between the parties involved so I could care less.

My wager is on the part that does cost me money, the eviction only.

Town will lose. Put your $$ where you mouth is or shut the F--- up. $1,000 - - - - anyone?


Anonymous said...

It's not a political decision the selectmen filed suit against the Osborns, It's a zoning issue. The Osborns didn't meet the requirements of their building permit. They still haven't met those requirements even though they have received many letters from the Town hall advising them of that.

The Osborns are living in a house that they don't have an occupancy permit for. It's a life safety issue. The Osborns must be evicted before something happens to them or worse yet a neighbor.

Selectmen are enforcing the building codes of our town, and that's all they are doing. GET IT, Maggie? YOU are the LAWBREAKER, not the Selectmen.

Now do the right thing a move until you come into compliance, and or pay the fines willingly. You’ve got plenty of money, do it for the kids and life safety.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

mag·got (mgt)
1. The legless, soft-bodied, wormlike larva of any of various flies of the order Diptera, often found in decaying matter.
2. Slang A despicable person.

maggot [ˈmægət]
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Zoology) the soft limbless larva of dipterous insects, esp the housefly and BLOWFLY, occurring in decaying organic matter

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

It would prove the Planning Board AND ZBA need to be disbanded. These incompetent self-serving people put all our property rights in danger.

Trust no one but yourself to do the right thing for yourself. Giving up your property rights to these people to oversee, is the same thing as playing Russian Roulette. It's just a matter of time before they blow your head off with their rules. Would like to ask Carol Davis and family what they think of how well they protected her rights. If anyone should be suing this town and it’s officials, it’s the Davis family. The town should be paying her private legal bills not CON-sentino’s. But then again, what can Mrs. Davis do for this town? She doesn’t run Elderly Affairs.

Anonymous said...

Is that you again in cap letters?
Please go to elementry school and learn basic spelling before you post again. It's really sad you can't spell or write a complete sentence. GRAMMER POLICE GUY, WHERE

Anonymous said...

cor·rup·tion (k-rpshn)
a. The act or process of corrupting.
b. The state of being corrupt.
2. Decay; rot.

corruption [kəˈrʌpʃən]
1. the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt
2. moral perversion; depravity
3. dishonesty, esp bribery
4. putrefaction or decay
5. (Linguistics) alteration, as of a manuscript
6. (Linguistics) an altered form of a word
corruptionist n

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. corruption - lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain
infection - moral corruption or contamination; "ambitious men are led astray by an infection that is almost unavoidable"
venality - prostitution of talents or offices or services for reward
dishonesty - the quality of being dishonest
jobbery - corruptness among public officials
2. corruption - in a state of progressive putrefaction
putrescence, putridness, rottenness
putrefaction, rot - a state of decay usually accompanied by an offensive odor
3. corruption - decay of matter (as by rot or oxidation)
decay - the process of gradually becoming inferior
4. corruption - moral perversion; impairment of virtue and moral principles; "the luxury and corruption among the upper classes"; "moral degeneracy followed intellectual degeneration"; "its brothels, its opium parlors, its depravity"; "Rome had fallen into moral putrefaction"
depravation, depravity, degeneracy, putrefaction
immorality - the quality of not being in accord with standards of right or good conduct; "the immorality of basing the defense of the West on the threat of mutual assured destruction"
5. corruption - destroying someone's (or some group's) honesty or loyalty; undermining moral integrity; "corruption of a minor"; "the big city's subversion of rural innocence"
degradation, debasement - changing to a lower state (a less respected state)
6. corruption - inducement (as of a public official) by improper means (as bribery) to violate duty (as by commiting a felony); "he was held on charges of corruption and racketeering"
inducing, inducement - act of bringing about a desired result; "inducement of sleep"

Anonymous said...

Maggot, Maggot is that you picking on Carol? Why I believe it is! Go back on the Dark Side where you belong. By definition, your life story is published here. No surprise it’s not a best seller.


Anonymous said...

No takers on the bet?


Repeat the same slanderous posts over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

'Its a zoning issue' WAAAAAAAAAA

Lotsa tracks by them 2 deer. Town will lose. I predict it.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

I think it's THREE DEER posting here. Three selectmen with two feet each filing suit against despicable people who don't WON'T follow the rules of the Town building permits.

In this case, the THREE DEER are doing their job to protect the rest of us taxpayers against the despicable OSBORNS. That's their job and I salute them.

Keep up the good work Bill, Bill, and the other guy.


Anonymous said...

Uneducated, uninformed, you sound like idiots. Get your facts straight!

Its a zoning issue, no its a life safety issue, no its a wetlands issue, no its a DSS issue. WHAT THE F IS IT??? You people are nuts.

Your attacks are so obnoxious I'm now rooting for the Osborns to win and shut you morons up. Go Maggie and Dan! WIN WIN WIN!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Gambler, define losing. What if the town and the Osborns come to an agreement and settle? Or if the Osborns sprinkle before trial, and case is dismissed?

Anonymous said...

When did Jack become a cheerleader?

Atkinson Reporter said...

Ad Hominem attacks will not be tolerated, hence the removed posts.

Also wowuld everyone try to maintain some level of decorum, keep the kids out of the discussion.

Anonymous said...

If there is an agreement, the case isn't dismissed it's settled. Let's see if that happens, and if so what the terms are. right?

Anonymous said...

Where do maggots go after the flesh is all ate?

Answer: They die.

tim dziechowski said...

"map 23 lot36 and map 23 lot27"

Neither of these lots has ever belonged to the town. Map 23 Lot 27-1 (the goofy Y shaped lot) was in play for awhile. This lot was intended by the Stickneys to provide boat and beach access to the pond for people in Stickney Shores who didn't have lake access. We tried to buy this for the town but were too late. Paul Masone and the other abutter had already purchased it.

There is an open DES complaint against Paul Masone for excess tree removal. Eben Lewis is handling this.

There is also an open DES complaint against the Osborns for tree removal and siltation of the pond.

DES hates going to court and it takes a long time for them to get around to it, but when they do they almost always win.

Anonymous said...

"They ALMOST always win". Now there's confidence.

You chickens won't take on the $1,000 challenge. Your only recourse is to redefine the bet. CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK.

OF COURSE THE TOWN WILL SETTLE FOR ANYTHING YOU MORONS because the town has no case for eviction. If I'm the Osborns lawyer I advise them to tell Atkinson FU. What you fail to recognize is our BOS has free legal counsel and almost unlimited liability insurance to do stupid things like evict people from their own home over political turf wars. Doh! And you morons are dumb enough to be used as a tool to apply public pressure for them. The BOS may be winning in the court of public opinion but will lose badly in the court that really matters.

I'll state it one last time for the record. Who will take on my $1,000 bet that Atkinson will lose its eviction case against the Osborns? I will define winning for you. It means Atkinson obtains a court order to forcibly remove the occupants from the premises. Anything short of THAT is a LOSS. AIN'T HAPPENIN PEOPLE. Get your facts straight. Go read up on eviction law instead of studying deeds. If you can read.

Come on you tough talking bunch of dumb trash! Wassa matta? Someone with a brain challenges you on your spin and slander and you back down like the cowards you are. All two of you.

Just as I thought.

GO OSBORNS GO!!! DON'T GIVE IN TO THE MORONS!! Defend your home and family against government oppression and an uneducated mob of miscreants.

Anonymous said...

Nice try Maggie. You are going to court and made to do the right thing. You will either come into compliance or you will be removed until you do. That's the law and you will be held to it. Your fines to date are over 48K and the Town will make you pay them. That will help make our tax rate go down, thank you very much.

Nobody it going to take a bet from someone that won't pay up. Your reputation proceeds you. Save your money, you are going to need it to pay your fines and damages. Get use to it.


Anonymous said...

wheres the money masone paid the town for those twolot,s and how much did they pay one lot was worth 46.100 the other was worth 37.000 and where the bill of sale?????

Anonymous said...

Hey jmho March 12, 2010 11:01 AM

My name ain't Maggie. Nice try blowhard. Still afraid to take the bet I see.

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

quit pickin on the pond scum! they
may be dumb and uneducated, and shitty neighbors, however they are still nice people. just make sure they stay where they are, down with the duck shit on the shore.


plus they don't have a $1000.00 to lose..... LOL

Anonymous said...

The amount of class on this site astounds me...

The main FACT is that the Osborns have, on numerous occasions, broken the law and ignored the town's regulations for building, safety, and other ordinances. People can say what they want about making bets... (Sure, I'd like to bet the town will win, but as I'm down living on the “duck shit of the pond" I have to save my money to pay off my med school loans, soooo sorry I’m one of those “uneducated hicks”… better hope I’m never your surgeon!) but anyway, it's inevitable that at some point the Osborns' misdeeds will catch up to them. No one can be above the law forever.

It truly baffles me why these people would even WANT to remain in our quiet little neighborhood, when it's so obvious that they have willingly gone to great ends to make enemies of everyone in the area! There must be some allure to the pond's "duck shit" apparently.

I'd also like to comment on those of you who would take cracks at the Osborn children. While I completely abhor Maggie's disregard for propriety, courtesy, environmental responsibility, and the LAW, her children do not deserve to be dragged through the mud and erosion the construction of their homes have caused. Like the moderator said, let's all try to be adults and be respectful... Even if Maggie is incapable of doing so herself.

I hope that eventually Natural Selection will prevail and the idiots in this town will be weeded out. Until then we'll just have to wait... and wait... and see. (How many more times do you think Ms. Paranoid will call the cops on someone walking their dog by her illegal driveway, or call on the environmental research people looking into all the damage the Osborn construction has caused? Grow up Maggie, you've got at least 20 years on my age, yet you still act like a three year old caught with his hand in the cookie jar! "Who me? I didn't do anything!" Take RESPONSIBILITY for your actions!

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

To Anon March 14, 2010 5:09 PM and
March 14, 2010 6:58 PM

Your posts amount to nothing but allegations and slander. Where's the facts?

They are in 2 words 'duck shit'.

Anonymous said...

Go crawl back under your rock Maggie. No one wants to hear from you.


Atkinson Reporter said...

Once again, Ad Hominem attacks will not be tolerated, hence the removed posts.

Try to exhibit some degree of class and restrict your comments to the combatants. LEAVE THE CHILDREN OUT OF IT!

Anonymous said...

i agree Maggie may be neglectful and may not follow rules and may not set good examples but those are her choices. I dislike Maggie 's actions myself, but leave her children out of this they are cute innocent kids. that should not be dragged through this due to there parents incompetency.

Anonymous said...

the town did own these lot,s they were given to paul and steve they filed in epping the cost to them was $40.00 the rate is0.015per thousand the minemumto file is $40.00 example if they paid $31.000they would have paid $465.00 so they got these lots for nothing .mayby a donation to the one that got them thisdeal after all paul,s land just went up $75.000 to water front

Anonymous said...