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.

Wednesday, September 1, 2010

Osborn's story changes again!


The Osborn's were back in Court today, trying once more to lay claim to the land they developed, owned by Carol Davis.

Once again, their story has changed.

You may remember the many times Maggie has claimed to "own a deeded right of way" that allowed them to build the driveway. Well they have now dropped that argument. Their NEW line of attack is to claim that they are not responsible, that there was no INTENT to do harm to Mrs. Davis, because they did "due diligence" to see if they could open the road.

They conveniently ignore the fact that the right of way is one Mrs. Davis' deed, and not theirs.

They ignore the fact that it was never granted to anyone.

They ignore the fact that it never appeared on any plot plan until 1995. They ignore the fact that their plot plan specifically refers to the "Stowers plot plan of 1924".

And they forgot to tell the Court that the language in their deed stating they have the right to "pass and re pass over A RIGHT OF WAY" was inserted into their deed BY THE OSBORNS. All the previous deeds in stead have language marking the boundaries of their property.

Their atty. Bernie Campbell, tried to claim that it is a "road by prescription", only to be shut down by Davis atty. pointing out that to be a "road by prescription" it must be in constant and regular use for more than 20 years. It didn't even exist until 1995!

Then Campbell made the argument that the Osborns "opened" the road, because since it was on Davis' plot plan, it could be granted and accepted by the town as a right of way at some point in the future, and then they would have a right to use it.

Quite a bit different from Mags tales of woe to the selectmen.

If the judge ends up siding with the Osborns, he will have made it legal for anyone to use feature of anyone else's deed, as their own, as long as they can make some spurious argument as to a right.

September 1, 2010 5:13 PM


Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...

They do not have the right to claim a feature that was not granted to them.


September 1, 2010 5:20 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The point is that if Judge Lewis rules in favor of the Osborns, then none of our property rights are protected from people like the Osborns.

If someone were to survey your property and file a plot plan with the registry of deeds that included an illegal ROW, then the Osborns came in and laid claim to it..........your land would be gone.

Watching Judge Lewis's decision is paramount to all our property rights. If he makes the wrong decision then we need to turn over our property to the State or Osborn look alike's.

We've seen this before with LIBERAL we get to see if Judge Lewis is one of them.

Stay tuned because your property rights depend on it.


September 1, 2010 8:34 PM
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon September 1, 2010 11:35 AM is stating misinformation when he/she says:


“Osborns in court today, ordered not to use new driveway or house, they fall again”. as listed in "Do the Selectmen EVER plan on informing the public of their activities?" section of this blog.

Leon Artus says:

The actual hearing was scheduled and held in front of Judge Lewis at 1 PM today with both attorneys arguing for summary judgment for their clients.

Osborn’s attorney argued that a right of way depicted on Mrs. Davis’s plot plan gave them the right to cut her trees and drive a road through her property because the road could be accepted by prescription at a later date without being offered or accepted.

Carol Davis’s attorney argued that the right of way was a depiction only and was never offered or accepted so prescription doesn’t apply. In addition, a Land and Boundaries report states that Carol Davis never offered or gave any rights to her property to anyone at anytime.

Judge Lewis took the case under advisement and I’m sure he’ll turn it over to his law clerks to research the factual cases that apply to this case. Don’t be surprised if his decision isn’t available for weeks. Depending on his decision the next trial date is November 9 & 10 at 8 AM. If he decides in favor of Carol Davis the Osborns will be done unless, of course they appeal to the Supreme Court.

I will keep you informed when the decision is made.

September 1, 2010 8:48 PM

Anonymous said...

the osborn's are liars and theifs and they are still living in there house i can prove that they are using that adress to put there kids in our school system they are just getting away with everything and i hope the judge can see right through them

Anonymous said...


Anonymous said...

I think the Osborns are very nice people and their only mistake is the fact the want to live in a neighborhood that have a number of relatives that were born in Winchedon MA

Anonymous said...

Nice or not they built a driveway across a nice womans property without permission.

Anonymous said...

osborne's need to move to area with more edumacated peoples because to many dropouts are surrundine thems
jist me opinion

carol should have sold them the row
but dey to smart fo dat den wes could end this mockery of justices

Anonymous said...

Easement by necessity

Despite the name, necessity alone is an insufficient claim to create any easement. Parcels without access to a public way may have an easement of access over adjacent land if crossing that land is absolutely necessary to reach the landlocked parcel and there has been some original intent to provide the lot with access, but the grant was never completed or recorded but thought to exist. A court order is necessary to determine the existence of an easement by necessity. To obtain this generally the party who claims the easement files a lawsuit and the judge weighs the relative damage caused by enforcing an easement against the servient estate against the damage to the dominant estate if the easement is found not to exist and thus landlocked. Because this method of creating an easement requires imposing a burden (the easement) upon another party for the benefit of the landlocked owner, the court looks to the original circumstances in weighing the relative apportionment of benefit and burden to both lots in making its equitable determination whether such easement shall be created by the court. This method of creating an easement, being an active creation by a court of an otherwise non-existent right, will be automatically extinguished upon termination of the necessity (for example, if a new public road is built adjacent to the landlocked tenement or another easement is acquirted without regard to comparison of ease or practicallity between the imposed easement and any valid substitute).

There is also an unwritten form of easement referred to as an implied easement or easement by implication, arising from the original subdivision of the land for continuous and obvious use of the adjacent parcel (e.g., for access to a road, or to a source of water)such as the right of lot owners in a subdivision to use the roadway on the approved subdivision plan without requiring a specific grant of easement to each new lot when first conveyed. An easement by necessity is distinguished from an easement by implication in that the easement by necessity arises only when "strictly necessary," whereas the easement by implication can arise when "reasonably necessary." Easement by necessity is a higher standard by which to imply an easement.

As an example, some U.S. state statutes grant a permanent easement of access to any descendant of a person buried in a cemetery on private property.

In some states, such as New York, this type of easement is called an easement of necessity

Anonymous said...

it certainly is not necessary when one ALREADY HAS ACCESS...

Anonymous said...

even if they have to pass thru the blight

MAcciard said...


not applicable as valcat ln. has served as the access to the Osborn's land for over 90 years, and is specifically referred to in the plot plan associated with their deed. By contrast the ROW across Mrs. Davis' land which they are trying to appropriate, and claiming is a "road of aged" never existed anywhere before 1995, when it was added to Mrs. Davis' plot plan, but never granted to anyone.

Anonymous said...

blah blah blah

Anonymous said...

Lets see some facts.

1) Deeds
2) Plans
3) Title reports last 20 years for all properties involed.

4) similar case in the state

Until then let courts decide the fate

Anonymous said...

All FACTS support Carol Davis.

Let's see what the court does and decide if the court supports the facts or the illegal taking of our property. Then we will see how far the Osborn's illegal taking of anothers property are supported by the court.

This case is as much about the court system as it is about the Osborn's illegal taking of our property.

There is only ONE decision the court should make, now let's see what they do. GOD HELP ALL OF US if the court makes the wrong decision.

This is an important decision for ALL OF OUR property rights, or what we think we have for rights.

Anonymous said...

Other than Maggie's comment of:

blah blah blah! Why hasn't she or DANIEL posted under their own name as to HOW RIGHT THEIR CAUSE IS, for all of us to see?

How about it MAGGIE & THE LOSER DANIEL...........PLEASE post and let all of BLOG NATION know your position of how RIGHT it is to STEAL someone else's property?

Tell us of your relationship with the police dept.(IE CON-sentino & Bill Baldwin), Polito when you and he were on the same zba BOARD together, and the Selectmen you thought would help you steal Mrs. Davis property.

How about it MAGPIE and Mr. Magpie........where are your comments? Blog Nation would love u to justify your illegal positions. PLEASE POST and lie to us some more. We can't wait to hear from you.

Anonymous said...

Please post deed book and page / plan numbers.

Lots of verbiage but not one clear fact.

Anonymous said...

if maggies claim of "owning a deeded right of way" were factually based, why drop it when they get to court and try to claim it is a road by prescription, when they admit they opened said road?

Anonymous said...

cause she knows she's wrong

Anonymous said...

What ever happened when the Town tryed to force them thru the court, to vacate the house?

Anonymous said...

Maggie CLAIMS to be living on her island estate, but the Town has done NOTHING to verify it. Why do we even bother to have SELECTMEN(?) when they don't even enforce the court order they sued for? Does ANYONE see something wrong with their follow through? Does ANYONE see a reason WHY they don't follow through? Hmmmmm?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you have a thing for "MAGGIE"

Anonymous said...

Wow, it's clear that Sept. 1, 8:48 pm is the same poster as Sept. 4, 2:32 pm, Sept. 6, 6:12 pm, Sept. 6, 8:21 pm, and Sept. 7, 1:34 pm.

Your obsession disturbing; get a hobby or professional help for yourself. Your true colors are showing.

Anonymous said...

Not one person here has made one fact avilable.

All anyone has said is she is wrong and I am right.

Frank did it. The cheif did it, the selectmen did it.....haven't blamed Bugs Bunny yet?

But still no facts

I hope you all know thats is not how courts work......

Anonymous said...

You want facts? Go back over all the articles we have been posting for a year and read them. There's enough documentation and the rest you can get from the registry of deeds (on line BTW).

Anonymous said...

When I read all the documentation on this Davis - Osborne case, I cannot help but see the enabling by the town board who issued these permits and by the board of selectmen who have done nothing to stop this. I also read about the police officers who have been invloved and why haven't they done anything. Surely there's a law against destroying someone elses property and this also is trespassing. Why is the town government silent?

Anonymous said...

Typical Atikinson.

I have a friend who's car was stolen here and the police told her it was a civil matter and they would not take the complaint.

Anonymous said...

sounds like you forgot the facts
my boyfriend stole my car officer
who's name is the registered owner
the car is registered under
my boyfriend but i really own it.
if your boyfriend is the registered owner then you cannot report he stole it
that sucks because i really own it
officer: sorry, this is a civil matter
woman: i'll tell a friend who can post a blog fact with misinformation but a blog fact is a blog fact so that makes it true

this is purely an example of what probably happened or something similiar.

Anonymous said...

here is a fact....

An implied easement is a type of ownership interest in land. An easement occurs when an individual is granted the right-of-use of someone else's land. An implied easement, specifically, occurs when the grant of the right of use is implied and not formally written or deeded.

In certain instances, one person may require the use of another person's land for a number of reasons. For example, a home owner may need to run sewer lines along his neighbor's property so that he can be connected to the public sewer system. In other instances, one person may need to have the right to use a path or driveway on a neighbor's land in order to have access to a public road or other desirable location.

MAcciard said...

Yes and an implied easement does not give one the right to cut down over 30 trees, re-grade land, Gravel and pave a road through said implied easement. It does not give one the right to appropriate for their own use over .2 Acres of someone elses property, rendering the remainder of said property useless, and un salable as it is now a non conforming lot due to it's reduced size.

Anonymous said...

To September 9, 2010 11:45 AM:

Sounds like a cop wrote this. The car was stolen. Any idea what this means?

Anonymous said...

An implied easement is defined with a specific location too.

Anonymous said...

Lets see.

A car was given to an auto body shop for repair and the guy goes out of business and disappears with the car.

Owner comes along and can't contact the slug so they go to the pd who claim that it's a civil matter since the guy is a former boyfriend, even though the guy doesn't own the car and has no title or right to steal it.

Do they take a statement? NO.

Do they investigate? NAH.

Why? They are incompetent and corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Even if the Police Chief is friends with the guy that took the car? Wouldn't that make it ok?

Anonymous said...

How could anyone have a THING for MAGGIE? Have you seen her or listened to her talk? (Unless you have a THING for UGLY of course)

Anonymous said...

So which officer has a boyfriend?
Call the sheriff's dept as they have jurisdiction in all of nh,
did maggie have anything to do with this? are you all crazies?

Anonymous said...

I see they reseeded the new fields today on East road. Do we have a new donation to cover these costs? No sprinklers, full of crab grass, needs regrading, but what the hell, lets throw a bunch of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$at it .
The ?, do we have more donation $$$?
Who's in charge over there Tim?

Anonymous said...

You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published.

I guess you chose not to play by your own rules.

Anonymous said...

Confucius say: “Beauty is only skin deep but ugly is to the marrow”.

Anonymous said...

One of the Officers has a boyfriend? Do tell. There are no female Officers BTW.

Anonymous said...

wow are you all, all over the place! did anyone notice the new barber shop across from eggies?