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.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

SCOOP: Judge Denies Osborn Motion, trial in 1 month!

For those who have been following the saga of the Osborns alleged unauthorized taking of Carol Davis' land, the Rockingham Superior Court Judge issued the Osborns a stunning rebuke this week. In his Order meticulously researched with and laced with case law citations, he denied the Osborn's claim that they had a right to build on Carol Davis' land.

Despite Maggie's incessantly repeated claims here in town of "owning a deeded right of way" for the last two years, strangely enough when filing motions in Court she has noticably backed off that claim, retreating so far as to try to claim that the driveway which she cut down trees and graded the land to build was ACTUALLY a "public way" in regular use for at least 20 years! That's right she went into court trying to claim it as a "road of prescription". Sorry Maggie.

The judge rightly stated that the ROW did not even appear on Mrs Davis' plot plan until 1995, when it was a "proposed road". He rightly points out that it was never conveyed to anyone, leaving the rights to it in the hands of Mrs. Davis alone. He further points out that in 1995, the land underlying the ROW, was conveyed and specifically included in Mrs. Davis' deed "to correct a zoning violation" for an undersized lot.

He noted that Mrs. Osborn's deed DOES give them a ROW to Chase Island rd. and that the ROW appears to be Valcat ln., as has been used as such for 90 years, as laid out in the plot plan which the Osborn's deed specifically references.

It now appears that the Court has validated the arguments made against the Osborn's unneighborly encroachments upon their neighbors land, validated the problems pointed out at planning board meetings by Mr. Artus, and soundly rebuked the legal ramblings of the ZBA chair Mr. Polito.

Trial is in mid December in Rockingham Superior Court, but we can not see upon what basis the Osborn's can possibly continue their proposed theft, but it will be interesting to watch. We wonder how this will affect all of Maggie's legal claims against he neighbors?

137 comments:

Anonymous said...

It doesn't surprise me.

I cannot understand why this went so far. I feel for Mrs. Davis is having to fight for her own property this way. Why did the zoning board go along with this and if they did so unknowingly, we need people who are going to keep these situations from developing in the first place. Otherwise, this tyope of problem could happen to anyone given ignorant town boards.

Now I am sure we will see yet another law suit against the town to follow this one.

Anonymous said...

They were told that Maggie didn't own the land, they put a requirement up front that she had to prove ownership. Frank polito removed that provision claiming that they did not get into ownership disputes, that was a civil matter. I wonder if Frank would feel the same way if one of his neighbors was trying to build something on his land?

Anonymous said...

That whole argument was ridiculous. They think they can give out permits to people who do not own the property? Insane. I hope Mrs. Davis pursues the town next. Maybe someday they will get it.

Anonymous said...

How can you get a building permit without owning the property you are building on?

Anonymous said...

better question is how do you build a 4400 sq. ft. house with a 2600 sq.ft. building permit?

Anonymous said...

Polito and the ZBA were correct.

The variance discussion was that the owners had to provide adequate access for fire protection or alternate acceptable (to the FD) fire prevention (like sprinklers).

That the owners chose to seek adequate fire access via means that may have violated an abutter's rights is of no concern to the ZBA. The Osborns could have just as easily sprinklered.

The ZBA is not a land court nor are they land police. They did not give Osborne's permission to do what they did... in fact, the ZBA explicitly, and properly, avoided involvement. It is a civil matter involving land ownership and rights-of-way between private parties.

The Osbornes chose their course and will now face consequences if it is shown they violated others' property rights.

It really is that simple.

Anonymous said...

The town gave them a driveway permit through someone else's property. If that doesn't raise a red flag for them, nothing would.

To issue a permit to someone who you KNOW does not own the property, when the owner was not even notified of the meetings is nothing short of negligent.

Anonymous said...

Really, Frank, is it that simple? So if the townhas before them an application for a building permit, or a driveway permit, and they are told by an abutter that the abutter was not notified of the hearing, as required by law, and that the applicant does not own the land which they are trying to build on, Your stance is that the town has no responsibility to ask if that is true?

Anonymous said...

I don't think the town holds hearings for issuance of building or driveway permits (is there such a thing as a driveway permit?). Permits are issued by Code Enforcement under Selectmen's (not ZBA) authority. Nor do I think Building Permits require abutter notification.

If I am right than this talk about building permit "meetings" and "legally-required notifications" is just plain incorrect.

The ZBA did not give permission to build a road of any sort. In the variance they said the owners must satisfy AFD's requirements for fire safety, nothing more. The owners chose to build the road (perhaps without having that right, we'll see next month).

People are looking for a villian here and it is not the town. The court next month may find a villian though.

Anonymous said...

You have to get a permit for a driveway! It is not a hearing but there is a process in place.

You have to notify abutters when you go for a variance too.

The ZBA asked for proof of land ownership then dropped the ball. If you think they can issue a variance on someone else's property, they cannot.

Anonymous said...

This doesn't pass the smell test!

Anonymous said...

What kind of person builds a road across someone else's property?

Anonymous said...

Quoting...
"You have to get a permit for a driveway! You have to notify abutters when you go for a variance too."

Both of those statements are true. But they are not connected.

The ZBA held hearings where abutters were notified. The ZBA granted a variance with conditions, one being satisfaction of AFD requirements. But the ZBA did not direct the owners HOW to satisfy AFD requirements, that was owner's choice.

The Building Inspector (presumably) issued a permit for the roadway. Presumably, the applicants asserted they had legal right to cut the road where they did. It is not up to the Building Inspector to dig into 100 years of deeds to validate property ownership rights; he only monitors that proper construction standards are followed.

People... you are free to hate town servants, but none acted inappropriately here. The court next month will determine one of two outcomes:
1. Osbornes acted within their rights, or
2. Osbornes violated the rights of a neighbor and may have damages to pay.

Consider this analogy. A judge orders one convicted of shoplifting to pay $500 restitution to the store he stole from. The shoplifter mugs an old lady to get the $500. Is the judge to blame for the methods used by the shoplifter to raise the $500?

MAcciard said...

Wow, that was one of the most calm, lucid, well reasoned posts I have seen here. There are a couple of facts missing.

1.) Mrs. Davis, as abutter, was never notified of the meetings. When she complained about not being notified, Mr. Polito told her she did not have to be notified as she was not an abutter. That was wrong.

2.) The ZBA was notified that Mrs. Osborn did not own the property. They placed a condition of issuance that Mrs. Osborn had to prove ownership. Mr. Polito at a subsequent meeting, on his own, without a vote of the board, removed this condition. This enabled the Osborns to go ahead, and effectively steal Mrs. Davis land.

Anonymous said...

Mark:

As to abutters being notified for variance hearings, I believe the onus is on the applicant to get the list of abutters right. I don't think the ZBA or Planning Office have any role in that process except to record those abutters applicant submits and mails to. I do not know what recourse is available to an abutter who was NOT notified of a variance hearing, but I'd guess there is a process. Could it be Davis did not avail herself of this?

In the variance hearings, the Osbornes were not the applicants, some other family was. But (I believe) the variance issued would stay with the property in an ownership transfer. So much of the discussion of "ZBA-Osborne dealings" are not accurate, the ZBA dealt with that other family.

And contrary to your assertion, there has not yet been a ruling whether the Osbornes "stole" Davis' land or not. That ruling comes next month in a civil hearing where the matter belongs. Your guilty verdict is premature (though it sounds as though it may prove accurate).

MAcciard said...

Mea Culpa,

You are correct, Actually Patrick Mallon started the process, with Daniel Osborn under the name of Malborn(prophetic moniker, maybe?) Trust. After the process was started Patrick bowed out and Daniel became the sole trustee. And yes, Maggie claimed not to have realized that Mrs. Davis was not notified. That was when Frank stated that she didn't need to be notified as she was not an abutter. Not sure how he came to that conclusion, but it is what it is. And yes, although my conclusion is legally premature, the current Court decision DOES negate any ownership or availability of rights over said property by the Osborn's so, It is morally correct if premature legally.

MAcciard said...

By the way, Thank you, I so enjoy having a discussion, nee debate? in a civil manner without the screaming, name calling and recriminations.

Anonymous said...

And thank you back.

There are enough questionable actions among town volunteers and employees that when some are (my opinion) wrongly accused, the record needs to be set straight.

Anonymous said...

Driveway Permits:
There seems to be some confusion on the scope of an Atkinson Driveway Permit. Some clarification here.

The permit wording details it being requested by the "applicant/owner", not explicitly the property owner of record. A party with legal access rights to the Town Road across a parcel of land is a valid applicant for a Driveway Permit. The Permit itself ONLY details aspects of the Driveway access int the Right of Way area of Town Road so many feet from the Road center. The Town's control associated with the Driveway Permit is limited to within the Town Road ROW. So, Driveway Permit did not give the Town any rights to stop the tree cutting and excavation on the Davis property.

Anonymous said...

To Anon November 11, 2010 1:37 PM

Why do you try to defend the ZBA and Frank Polito? It was Frank who took the requirement off the table for the Osborn's to prove ownership of a supposed deeded right of way (driveway) to Chase Island Road. He then gave them a permit to build a BIGGER home on their property than would have been allowed based on putting that driveway in place. Frank Polito emboldened the OSBORN'S TO STEAL Carol Davis's property (yes even required them to do it) under color of law: while knowing they didn't own the land and yes even stating that Carol Davis was NOT an abutter.

We had to endure people like you for two years defending the Town’s (Osborn's) corruption while you continued to defame honest taxpayers as being kooks. You even said we had no proof that the Osborn's didn't own the property. You wouldn't even look at the proof that was available.

Well, the judgment has been made and the proof is concrete. The Osborn's illegally took Carol Davis land with the Town's smirk and wink of the eye. Now perhaps the honest people of Atkinson will be able to wipe that smug, arrogant smirk off their face and yours too!

COULDN'T HAPPEN TO BETTER PEOPLE!


The Osborn's will be made to pay and PAY BIG! Polito and the Town should fess up and pay big too for their involvement!

Anonymous said...

As I said earlier, you are free to hate town servants as you wish. But in this situation you do so in spite of the facts.

It is not ZBA purview to monitor HOW people attempt to comply with variance conditions. Nor does the Building Inspector get involved in validating legal ownership.

This is a purely civil matter. If the Osborne's violated Davis' rights, the court presumably punish them accordingly.

Anonymous said...

You are so pathetic. Keep passing the buck if you want, but you have no clue as to the facts.

1. Ted Stewart issued the driveway permit, not the building inspector.

2. The Town already knew Osborn's didn't own the land, when driveway permit was issued.

3. Town only retracted driveway permit AFTER threat of lawsuit. (THEY TRIED TO COVER THEIR ASS TO NO AVAIL)

If the Town doesn't know who owns what in this Town and won't verify ownership by policy, they shouldn't be allowed to charge permit fees and issue permits. Only qualified people should be allowed to do it.

Here is a situation where the Osborn's took advantage of the system, and illegally took land of another while ALL TOWN OFFICIALS LOOKED THE OTHER WAY. This is NOT a matter of hating Town officials, it's a matter of learning how Town officials game the system and put a STOP TO IT!

Tell Carol Davis that the Town did nothing wrong and how nice the Osborn's are. You will get an ear full and tell you just how SICK YOU ARE! Do you have any idea how many hundred of thousand of dollars the Town and the Osborn's have cost Mrs. Davis? Are you willing to chip in to help her pay her legal fees because of the Town's ineptness? I bet not! Why? Because people like you are the problem in Town. You want people like Carol Davis to be taken advantage of, and laugh and support Town officials who do it. As long as it happens to someone else, you have no problem but: if it happened to you..........YOU WOULD BE SCREAMING BLOODY MURDER!

That’s why honest people are working hard daily against people like you that want to take their rights, money and property away from them.

MAcciard said...

I have to admit, I can not imagine having a neighbor so brazen, arrogant and careless of her neighbors rights, to build something on MY property, and when I tell the authorities not to issue the required permits because she doesn't own MY LAND, I am told I have to spend tens of thousands of dollars of my own money to prove that she doesn't own it, while continues on her merry way destroying not only my property, but also reducing it to a size small enough to be rendered non-conforming, thus robbing me of the entire value of my property.

I admit that while I can not imagine that happening to me, I have watched with trepidation as this very scenario has unfolded before my very eyes.

I can not be more disgusted with the performance of town officials, who while pursuing Mr. Mason for his illegally built addition, willfully allow the Osborns to build a house 1800 sq.ft. bigger than the theft of Mrs. Davis' land would allow, and TRIPLE the size of what would be allowed on the land that they have available.

I also con not be more disgusted at the behavior of the Osborns toward ALL of their neighbors. Their conduct with regards to Mrs. Davis is obvious, but the endless police complaints, criminal allegations, tears at selectman's meetings, all the while claiming a right of ownership which they knew did not exist! Abominable!

Anonymous said...

To Anon Nov12 2:39pm
As I tried to point out earlier, the town had no basis to deny the Driveway permit. The applicant does NOT need to be the owner, just someone who believes they have the right of access to the Town road at that point which Maggie believes she had. With the permit issued the Town only has rights to control within the Town Road Right of Way of 20 or 25ft from the road center line. If the Town official had denied the Permit initial, they would have had no basis and yet another reason for another frivolous law suite. The access across the property could be a Lease, Deed Easement whatever, NOT the Town jurisdiction at all, a Civil matter, in this case for the Court since Maggie and crew didn't even resolve it with the property owner first.

Anonymous said...

Maggie Osborn told Carol Davis many times that Maggie would do whatever she wanted, whenever she wanted to Carol's land and that there was NOTHING that Carol could do about it. How ARROGANT can one person be? If Carol were a lesser person, Maggie would have won. In reality, Maggie misjudged Carol. Carol stood up and won. Now Maggie and Daniel will pay the price, and we need to make ( as a town) Carol whole.

If any Town Official or one of their supporters disagrees, please post now and tell us why you believe Carol was at fault and Maggie and Town Officials who supported Maggie are right.

It's time to divide the weak from the strong, Town officials that refuse to do the right thing from people that want the right thing, and go forward as an honest town without the corruption.

How about it Town officials? Post under your own name as to where you stand. Forget Polito,He’s TOAST! CON-sentino and Baldwin shortly after.

Anonymous said...

Mark...

The town's position on "willfully allowing the Osbornes to build a house 1800 sq ft larger than" whatever is yet to be seen.

The Osborne's do not have an Occupancy Permit. After their fire safety issues are resolved, they may still not get one. There were other variance conditions they must adhere to.

One was the allowable size of the home. If they materially exceeded what was allowed in the variance, one would hope the Selectmen will act as they did with Mason and force compliance (even if it means a partial tear-down) before issuing the OP. Fair is fair.

Like some others here, I'm watching what the Selectmen will or won't do. But I'll withold criticism until they act (or not).

Anon 2:39 11/12...
In none of my statements have I indicated support for the Osbornes. All I've said is that a verdict will be rendered in the proper venue next month. If the Osbornes violated Davis' rights, I hope the penalty is appropriate to the (considerable) damages.

But understand that the ZBA, Building Inspector and Road Agent are not courts-of-law. Another poster explained how the one might get a driveway permit without having (or proving) ownership.

If a violation occurred, it was when the Osbornes stuck the first shovel into Davis' land where they had no rights. And that is a civil matter between two private parties.

Anonymous said...

To anon November 12, 2010 3:28 PM

You pointed out the obvious about Zoning and why it should be dissolved.

The law gives the Town certain rights with NO accountability as to the rights of people that are affected. STOP PLEASE with the argument of frivolous law suite, because the law doesn't require Town Officials to verify ownership. (That is just a matter of Common sense that our Town Officials don't have) That needs to be made part of the law so corruption can not exit.

Town officials want us to believe that any suit against them is frivolous, when it is honest people’s right to bring it because of Town officials ineptness.

Just because of the lack of Common Sense by our Town officials is lacking, is cause for lawsuits. STOP trying to justifying taking our rights away.

Maggie is TOAST, Polito is TOAST, and soon Town officials that support them will be TOAST! We support your right to take your position, and you need to respect our position to disagree. We will continue to fight with or without your help. Heaven help you if we find out you are a Town official.

Anonymous said...

You see one of the many problems with this incident is the fraudulent means used to obtain the building permit. For example, The Osborns submitted plans for a 2,600 sq. ft. house. They were approved for this contingent upon having direct access to a class V rd. Hence the need for the driveway. AFTER this approval, The Osborns had an architectural firm draw up plans for a 4,400 sq. ft. house, which now stands at 8 Valcat ln. Unfortunately for the town, Bob Jones, went to measure up the house to see if it was bigger, came back to town hall, and sat there in the planning office trying to figure out the sq.ft. with all the angles, gables, he couldnt do it. So he got out the submitted plan, and just agreed that it was approximately right. Anyone looking at the foundation poured pursuant to the foundation permit issued, would instantly know that the originally submitted home could not be built on that foundation.

Anonymous said...

Are you presuming that is what Jones did, or are you sure an official opinion has been rendered?

In other words, is the town yet "on-the-record" as to agreeing that the home on that lot complies with the variance guidelines?

I am not aware the town has stated a position on that.

Anonymous said...

To Anon November 12, 2010 3:53 PM

Here we go again. Deny, deny and deny some more. You don't think we can prove that the house is BIGGER than permitted by Polito? You want to drag this out another two years before the Town is required to tear that monstrosity down? GUESS AGAIN!

If Selectmen continue to protect Polito, Osborn's, CON-sentino, Baldwin, Farrer, AGAINST Carol Davis and all those arrested by Con-sentino.............GOD won't be able to protect them.

The HONEST PEOPLE/TAXPAYERS will speak!

Anonymous said...

To November 12, 2010 4:25 PM

I actually do agree with you on lots of things. From what I see at this point Maggie was way out of line. I was trying to point out that the Driveway Permit process is only intended to control access to Town Roads. Beyond the strict deed rights there are property Lease agreements that when interpreted differently (as in the Maggie case) are out of town jurisdiction, although we may wish it was. The costs of Civil action (thank god) like this are not costs of the Town.

And bye the way, I am not a Town official. Those elected officials that are not doing what the Public want, can/will be removed via elections. A big problem however is that so many of the positions you and others condemn are Volunteer positions that are harder and harder to fill. I for one would not put up with the ridicule for any $ let alone 0. So no surprise the volunteer positions and committees are harder and harder to fill.
God help us...

Anonymous said...

To Anon November 12, 2010 4:43 PM

The inept Bob Jones that wrote that letter to the Osborn's is reason for the Osborn's to claim that the SF is correct. The Town claims because of that letter, that the Town has to back him up. In other words, the Town is backing the Osborn's up and can be accountable for ineptness. God help them if they do. The building speaks for itself.

How do you say “Goodbye CORRUPTIOJN in Town Government" and those that outwardly support them?

PEOPLE.............start asking Polio, all Selectmen, zoning board, planning board, road agent, police dept., fire dept. and ALL TOWN OFFICALS where they stand on these issues and report back on this blog. They are out of wiggle room, so just do it and we will tell you of other issues where your ELECTED OFFICIALS have worked to damage your rights in the future.

Anonymous said...

Hey, just got it from reliable scource that Maggie's kid got kicked off the school bus for calling Carol Davis's grandchild "TRAILER TRASH"! Looks like Maggie is esculating her loss down to the school level. Heard the Maggie got her kids in our school system by claiming they are homeless because she doesn't have a OC and the school and selectmen allowed her arguement for FREE SCHOOLING AT OUR EXPENSE. Maggie's own court filings back this up. Ok, so ask your selectmen whay they are allowing this! Come on selectmen and tell us why you haven't put a stop to this KNOWING the law! (or is this just more of your CORRUPTION)

Anonymous said...

Hey Maggie,

Still want to claim that Carol Davis can't stop you for doing whatever you want to her property?

What an arrogant couple you are!

See you and your accomplices in court on DEC.13TH & 14TH if it goes that far.

Ps.......how come you haven't commented on the judge's opinion?

How come you are not claiming YOU ARE THE VICTIM as you have done in the past?

How do you like being TOAST without the protection of Sapia and crowd? Will you sue CON-sentino to get your money back?

You will be made to pay BIG, AND owe Carol an apology.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 5:08
Please educate me with facts. I am not familiar with all aspects of these proceedings.

Are you saying Jones is on the record with a letter to the Osbornes indicating their as-built home complies with the square-footage conditions of the variance?

If that is true, and if that home exceeds the variance conditions as flagrantly as asserted by many here, then that is not good.

I do not subscribe to the "mafia" theories, but if the house has been blessed while grossly exceeding the variance conditions, then Jones screwed-up big time.

Anonymous said...

That is correct and Jones didn't screw up, he did what he was told in an attempt to protect the Town. I'll predict that down the road, Davis will not only sue the Town, Polito, selectmen, planning board, ZBA but Jones too. Jones will be thrown under the bus by selectmen and Davis will take everything Jones has BEFORE getting to the rest of them. It took us two years to get to Osborn but it won't take much longer to get to the Atkinson Mafia and the STUPID JONES.

Anonymous said...

PS. IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE JONES LETTER, LET US KNOW AND WE WILL PROVIDE IT AFTER YOU LET US KNOW THE SELECTMEN WON'T PROVIDE IT TO YOU UNDER YOUR RTK REQUEST.

THE MORE DENIED REQUESTS BY HONEST TAXPAYERS TO SELECTMEN, THE BETTER TO BURY THEM WITH.

Anonymous said...

Hey Maggie and Daniel......Why haven't you posted here to let everyone know that you are being targeted? Let us know why you haven't had CON-sentino arrest another innocent taxpayer on your word!


Taxpayers: Please let this blog know if Consentino sends you a letter threatening your arrest if you continue to complain about him or Osborns. If your house is targeted with paint saying "LEAVE THE CHIEF ALONE...MOVE” We need to know about that too.

If Sapia or any other of the town cronies talk to you about how right the town is, we want to know.

Anonymous said...

To Nov 12 8:31 PM
You said "That is correct and Jones didn't screw up, he did what he was told in an attempt to protect the Town."

Connect some dots for me here. First, let's assume for now that assertions here are correct, that the Osborn house significantly exceeds the size conditions in the variance.

How is the town "protected" by accepting that over-size house? It seems to me the opposite... by accepting the clearly oversized house the town becomes open to "selective enforcement" actions (like from Mason).

You indicate Jones did not screw up but was told to write the letter accepting the house as-built... right? Who told Jones to write that letter, and why?

I am trying to understand facts and possible motives here to judge whether officials did act against the town's interests; and if so was it incompetence or calculated action.

Anonymous said...

In the opinion of most here, backed by the documents, it was not incompetence but calculated action. When this information is brought to the attenion of the selectmen again, watch how they react. If they don't insist the house to be rebuilt to 1400 SF, all hell will break out, and you will have your answer and more lawsuits will be brought.

jtootitk

tim dziechowski said...

"better question is how do you build a 4400 sq. ft. house with a 2600 sq.ft. building permit?"

I haven't looked at the foundation plan in their lot file but a big part of the answer is that you get a variance for a 2600 sq ft house with the variance requiring that the basement remain unfinished. You then ignore the variance conditions and finish the basement.

Anonymous said...

Dont forget finishing a great room above the garage, that the original plans show as vacant. Inother words FRAUD!

Anonymous said...

Look at the certified foundation plans like the selectmen did and let us know why they didn't have Jones shut them down in the first place.

This whole building project was riddled with fraud from the start, starting with Polito, backed by the selectmen, protected by Jones and enforced by CON-sentino at the expense of Carol Davis. What else do you expect from the Atkinson Mafia? Give rides to the Doctor by CON-sentino's Magoone squad for the elderly? Whoops, that’s exactly what happens in this town!

This is the third building scam Polito and the rest of the Town officials have helped the Osborn’s pull off. Now someone is going to jail and we don’t believe just the Osborns.

Stay tuned because looks like just the beginning and the fun has just begun.

Anonymous said...

To Tim D.

You can thank Polito for the finished cellar too! Fraud, fraud and more fraud, all under the color of law and ZBA regulations. Doesn't it make you wonder what other illegal activity they are involved in?

This case is just the tip of the iceberge. Do you hear a bus coming?

Anonymous said...

WOW,BREAKING NEWS!

Word is that Osborn's want to cut a deal and are willing to testify against town officials! Please say it isn't so. Could this be the beginning of people being thrown under the bus?

Can hardly wait to see how this unfolds.

Anonymous said...

I heard day did an is gunna be fugly!!!!

Anonymous said...

I'm no lawyer, but a deal does not sound plausible to me. What could they "trade" criminal testimony for?

A favorable outcome in a civil matter (Davis)? No, the state could not disenfranchise the Davis' in that fashion.

A reduction or waiver of accrued fines? Maybe. Could the state prosecutors make that deal, offering a concession they themselves do not own or control?

A waiver of variance regs and an immediate Occupancy Permit? No way... even if they had the legal right, the state would never sanction putting a family in a home acknowledged to have inadeguate fire protection. The other variance conditions might be waivable though.

This gets crazier and crazier.

There is little doubt we have a homeowner willing to push the system in any way possible. I guess the question now is whether it was handled by town officials in simply an incompetent fashion, or something more nefarious is afoot. I don't have an informed opinion but will follow this with interest.

Anonymous said...

Could it be that criminal prosecution of the Osborns is already in or soon to be in play?

Anonymous said...

Town needs to step up now, everyone is going to be held accountable in someway, this is a good lesson for this not to happen ever again in our Town. As far as the children of both Osborn and Davis, that is just so bad. Keep the kids out of it, there is too much bullying, this is just another form, thankfully the new bullying laws are going to be passed, I think this week, and parents will be held accountable of their children's actions civilly. On another note, Mason should hold off on destruction permit of his illegal addition, until the final straw of proof, that the town has to do the same for his neighbor, regardless of how big her house is. If Osbornes home is bigger than originally permitted, our town officials have to send the message, that no one in our town should be trying to get away with building or adding without these permits. Now if whoever passed this permit if true, Man you need to get another job somewhere else, cause I don't want someone like that running our Town paid or not paid. There is always going to be someone to fill the seat even if you don't think it will be. There are honest citizens out there that just want to do the right thing.

Anonymous said...

Oh, wouldn't it be great if Osborns have proof that they paid a town official (s) for protection in building that house, and testified? She's done it before and wouldn't be surprised if she did it again. What poetic justice that would be!

New reality show right here in Atkinson. "AS THE BADGE SPINS"!

Anonymous said...

The Town just got thru prosecuting Mr. Mason, so they will be obligated to treat Osborn the same way or they might have to look forward to yet another lawsuit by Mason for "selective enforcement".

There are lots of other people in Town who have finished their basements or attics without permits and they just never let in the tax assessor. They get away with it until they try to sell and the listing sheet does not match the house or the tax card.

Anonymous said...

We had a problem with Jones when he would not enforce the building code and signed off on some shoddy work done on our house by a local contractor. Jones screamed at us and said he refused to believe the contractor would do anything wrong. We invited him to take a second look but he would not come over and look for himself. We called the board and Consentino said to get a lawyer if you don't like it.

This stuff is happening all over town and has been for years.

Anonymous said...

Maybe the Osborn's made a donation to the fund. Maybe it was made before the state cracked down and money went to the town account. When were these permits obtained and when did the town dissolve the donation account?

It's always the same people involved in all these scandals.

Anonymous said...

Don't be too quick declaring a scandal.

It well may be that there is one brewing, but let the facts come out rather than foster rumors.

So far, this thread has had lots of conjecture and speculation with fewer facts.

Leaving the Osborne / Davis dispute aside as a private civil matter, can someone definitively answer:

1. Has the town (inspector and/or Selectmen) officially deemed the Osborne house, as-built, in compliance with the variance conditions?

2. Can someone relate the chain-of-events as to exactly how that occurred?

Please try to refrain from scalding comments about those involved... try to simply relate the facts for us.

Anonymous said...

Here is the letter written to the Osborns by Bob Jones


October 23, 2009
Malborn Realty Trust
c/o Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Osborn
8 Valcat Lane
Atkinson, New Hampshire 03811

Subject: 8 Valcat Lane
Map 22, Lot 47

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Osborn,
The following is a report and compilation of outstanding items as a result of my pre-final inspection of the above noted property.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2009, Jim Kirsch and I made an onsite visit to the above noted location to measure the foundation and verify that the building was the same size as shown on building plans dated 8/20/07 submitted with the original building permit. After calculating my measurements of the new building and comparing them to the Zoning Board approved measurement of 2,587+/-, I found the square footage does comply with the ZBA approval.
At your request, another visit was made to conduct a pre-final inspection. Fire Inspector Earley
and I conducted this inspection on October 16, 2009 and found the followings items to be
outstanding:
Fire Inspectors items as listed on a Field Correction order and left with Mrs. Osborn:
• No fire door to garage.
• The self closer was inoperable (did not close the door).
• There are not two ways out of the main (1st) floor - an exit pathway thru mud room will be
acceptable when complete.
• Numerous problems with oil heat unit - have discussed these problems with installer.
• Attic heat detector was not located.

• Building did not have sprinklers installed as per original agreement with building permit.
Building Inspectors items as listed on a Field Correction order and left with Mrs. Osborn:
• Hydronic hot water pipes must be insulated by code.

• Deck with rails and steps must be completed to satisfy requirement of egress thru mud
room.
• Stairs to front entrance were not uniform.
• Need front entrance handrails built to code.
• Need handrails on stairs leading to attic.
• I also checked the Zoning Board of Adjustment conditional approval letters and found the following conditions still unsatisfied: Boathouse/bunkhouse has not been removed
• The infiltration chambers although installed, have not been signed off by a Licensed
Engineer and gutters have not been installed to direct water from the roof to the
infiltration chambers.
• As of the writing of this letter, the access to your property does not meet with the Fire
Department approval (required if dwelling is not sprinkled).
There will not be an Occupancy Permit issued on this property until all above noted items/conditions by the Building, Fire Department and Zoning Board have been satisfactorily completed and receipt of notice of compliance from the NH Department of Environmental Services Wetland File Permit #2009-02278, 8 Valcat Lane.
It is understood that you will not occupy this property without benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy. Please contact us when all items/conditions have been satisfied and you ready for an inspection.
Thank you,
Robert Jones Building Inspector
Cc: Code Enforcement Fire Department Police Department Zoning Board Conservation Commission Attorney Sumner Kalman File

Anonymous said...

Here is the letter written to the Osborns by Bob Jones


October 23, 2009
Malborn Realty Trust
c/o Mr. & Mrs. Daniel Osborn
8 Valcat Lane
Atkinson, New Hampshire 03811

Subject: 8 Valcat Lane
Map 22, Lot 47

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Osborn,
The following is a report and compilation of outstanding items as a result of my pre-final inspection of the above noted property.
On Wednesday, October 14, 2009, Jim Kirsch and I made an onsite visit to the above noted location to measure the foundation and verify that the building was the same size as shown on building plans dated 8/20/07 submitted with the original building permit. After calculating my measurements of the new building and comparing them to the Zoning Board approved measurement of 2,587+/-, I found the square footage does comply with the ZBA approval.
At your request, another visit was made to conduct a pre-final inspection. Fire Inspector Earley
and I conducted this inspection on October 16, 2009 and found the followings items to be
outstanding:
Fire Inspectors items as listed on a Field Correction order and left with Mrs. Osborn:
• No fire door to garage.
• The self closer was inoperable (did not close the door).
• There are not two ways out of the main (1st) floor - an exit pathway thru mud room will be
acceptable when complete.
• Numerous problems with oil heat unit - have discussed these problems with installer.
• Attic heat detector was not located.

• Building did not have sprinklers installed as per original agreement with building permit.
Building Inspectors items as listed on a Field Correction order and left with Mrs. Osborn:
• Hydronic hot water pipes must be insulated by code.

• Deck with rails and steps must be completed to satisfy requirement of egress thru mud
room.
• Stairs to front entrance were not uniform.
• Need front entrance handrails built to code.
• Need handrails on stairs leading to attic.
• I also checked the Zoning Board of Adjustment conditional approval letters and found the following conditions still unsatisfied: Boathouse/bunkhouse has not been removed
• The infiltration chambers although installed, have not been signed off by a Licensed
Engineer and gutters have not been installed to direct water from the roof to the
infiltration chambers.
• As of the writing of this letter, the access to your property does not meet with the Fire
Department approval (required if dwelling is not sprinkled).
There will not be an Occupancy Permit issued on this property until all above noted items/conditions by the Building, Fire Department and Zoning Board have been satisfactorily completed and receipt of notice of compliance from the NH Department of Environmental Services Wetland File Permit #2009-02278, 8 Valcat Lane.
It is understood that you will not occupy this property without benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy. Please contact us when all items/conditions have been satisfied and you ready for an inspection.
Thank you,
Robert Jones Building Inspector
Cc: Code Enforcement Fire Department Police Department Zoning Board Conservation Commission Attorney Sumner Kalman File

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

So... many here claim the as-built house (not including the finished basement, a separate ZBA action) greatly exceeds the terms of the variance, in spite of the Jones / Kirsch findings.

I've heard the Osbornes are not very welcoming to visitors, so how is it people are so certain it does exceed the permitted size?

I am not casting doubt, or attacking or defending anyone, just trying to gather facts. It is not easy to filter facts through many of the flame-riddled postings here.

Anonymous said...

BTW, don't political signs need to be taken done 10 days after election?

Is Consentino exempt?

Anonymous said...

ROFL Consentino is ALWAYS exempt from the law! Jeez where have you been the last 5 years?

AFTER obtaining the building permit form the town based on a 2500 sq.ft. design, the Osborns hired an architectural firm to design a new 4,400 sq. ft. McMansion. Selectmen are in possession of the new plans that the house was actually built from.

Anonymous said...

Well, that means that taxpayers should be asking Selectmen why they haven't acted on having the Osborns tear it down, replace Valcat Lane the way it was and revert back to the 1400 SF they would be allowed to build because they don't own Carol Davis's property, right?

I wonder why selectmen went after Mason and not Osborn! Do you suppose he refused to make large donations to the town like Osborn has? Do you suppose he stood up and refused being husseled and was made to pay the price?

How come Selectmen are still allowing Osborn's to live in their house, after they got the court order to evict them?

This couldn't be corruption cause the town officials say it isn't, right? YA RIGHT!

Can't possibily be corruption, it's just ineptness. What would make anyone believe all these town officials could be scamming people? ANSWER: How about their actions vs. their words.

Anonymous said...

Their actions (as I see them) could point to either incompetence or corruption.

I'm having trouble finding plausible motive here for the malfeasance some are suggesting. Do people believe the ZBA, Chief, Selectmen and Inspectors are ALL in-the-tank with the Osborne's?

Why would they be?

Anonymous said...

ANSWER: Yes! The only question is to what degree each is involved.

Why? Money is one FORM or another.

We know where they live.
we know what they own.
We only need to know the degree of their involvement to bring the next lawsuit to have the judge decide what each owes.

Selectmen: Don't you DARE fire CON-sentino now.

Just an opinion

Anonymous said...

I have heard the selectmen have been quietly asking Phil to retire for 2 years now, he wont go! And they dont have the balls to fire him

Anonymous said...

The longer he sticks around the better the chances are that he will be drawn into all this. I would like him to stay as long as this takes. If he quits now, what fun would that be?

Anonymous said...

CON-sentino won't go because he knows where all the skeletons are. If selectmen force him out, he'll tell where they are buried and more people will go under the bus. Besides, CON-sentino is not smart enough to see the big bus headed his way.

Once a DUFUS, always a DUFUS.

Anonymous said...

"Oh, wouldn't it be great if Osborns have proof that they paid a town official (s) for protection in building that house, and testified? She's done it before and wouldn't be surprised if she did it again."

Got any backup on this statement?

Anonymous said...

Patience our friends, patience. You will get to see it at the most opportune time. Does anyone hear a big bus starting up, or is that a train?

Anonymous said...

Why does Police chief want backup to that statement? Thought he had a detective on his payroll to do his dirty work? Oh, must be incompetence. Forget I asked the question.

LMAO

Anonymous said...

It wasn't Chief-O who asked. I asked because the comment says she did this before, as in, she paid an official and she admitted it in court later.

Just prying here....

Anonymous said...

Look at the court documents. If people weren't getting seriously hurt, it might be funny. Maggie and Daniel are their own worst enemy. To bad they put their faith in Town officials to keep them out of trouble. To bad Town officials tried to manipulate her. They left the door open for her to bury them, and they don't even know that looks like it's going to happen.


Only in Atkinson, folks...........

Anonymous said...

I don't see this in the court documents. Where?

Anonymous said...

Looks like Daniel and Maggie Osborn turned out to be the liars and thieves that everyone here said they were, despite Maggie running around arrogantly saying they had a deeded right of way. Doesn’t this make them the “Trailer Trash” of high society here in Atkinson? Doesn’t this make you worry that they might buy a place next to you, or want to befriend you? How about the people that helped them on their way to stealing Carol Davis’s land? What do we do about them?

Osborn’s have done irreparable damage to the Davis property and intentionally tried to destroy Carol financially. They intentionally heaped mounds of stress onto one of the finest elderly, single ladies of our town, while stealing her gravel to fill in their own land. They did all this with no consideration what so ever for the health or financial well being of Mrs. Davis. How much more despicable could one couple be?

Some here may consider this a white collar crime by white collar trash, but this is no different than if a thug had put a gun to Mrs. Davis’s head and insisted that she sign her property over to them. The only difference is the Osborns used their money, influence, and the process to get a building permit, to achieve their goal. It’s nice to see that the court saw through Maggie and Daniel’s lies and will get a chance to make Carol whole. I hope Carol is awarded everything that the Osborn’s have and more, because there is no amount of money that could repair the damage the Osborn’s have done to Mrs. Davis. God speed Carol.

Anonymous said...

I would like to read that proof of where they paid an official.

Anonymous said...

Have Maggie and Daniel left the country, or are they still slinking around among the honest people of Atkinson? Disinfect where ever they walk or sit if you see them. It's a public safety issue.

Anonymous said...

Check your garbage can. They are most likely hanging around with the rest of the Maggots, conniving a town ordinance to justify their theft!

Anonymous said...

Probably with Sapia and Polito, or filing a lawsuit against them for getting her into this mess. You know she isn’t going to take any responsibility for what she did. She has to find someone else to blame, so why not go back to where it started? Poor, poor Maggie (soon to be poor) she’s SUCH a nice woman……………I feel so sorry for her! Where is she going to live? What’s going to become of her kids? How are they going to pay for all the damages? Perhaps get a job for once like everyone else? NO, no that’s not an option, couldn’t possibly work for a living. How degrading! No, better to find some unsuspecting family and steal their land! Ya, ya………..that’s a better idea.

WHAT A LOSER!

Anonymous said...

Why is the Osborn family still living in the home they were evicted from? I see cars coming & going from the home. Dan appears to be living on the island to make it look like the family is out there. But they lurk behind closed curtains w/the lights off. Why doesn't the town arrest them instead of innocent people?

Anonymous said...

Maybe Dan has his own reasons for living on the island.

tim dziechowski said...

"Maybe Dan has his own reasons for living on the island."

Well, the island is Map 22 Lot 39, now known as Rock Island and formerly known as Twin Island. If you look three deeds back in the title chain to a 1956 deed at RCRD book 1393 page 452, you find this tidbit.

"My title to the above described Twin Island, so-called, is derived through adverse possession of said island openly and continuously since 1925..."

So maybe Dan is guarding the island to make sure nobody swipes it back.

Apparently stealing land is an old family tradition.

Anonymous said...

Was it with Selectmen and Chief of Police help back then, or is this a new help with planning board and ZBA regulations of today?

Anonymous said...

With regards to Mr Osborn living on the island while wife and kids are hiding behind curtains and sheets. Isn't the island supposed to be seasonal, tax wise. If you are living in a seasonal, you pay lower taxes than year round, because you have to close up shop. If someone has proof he is claiming they live there, then seasonal needs to be changed, or the Town allows it or also evict them from the Island. Daniel you must be desperate, your a "WEENIE", your not a man, husband or father for the decisions that you help make or agree to with your spouse. Eventually pipes will freeze or burst, then you will be polluting Big Island Pond. Next what kind of parents would put their children in danger, in a house that has no Certificate of Occupancy. Fire dept could not give them clearance therefore the house is unsafe. Come on Mr and Mrs Osborne, its you children's lives you a playing around with. How selfish are the two of you to endanger your children, plus teach them to hide behind curtains, and live like sneaks. Neither of you have any morals to give to them. I guess maybe since Town doesn't get involved then Dept of Child Services should. If there are people who know what's going on and can somehow prove the children are being forced to living in unsafe environment, then Family services should be addressed or called. If they hide behind closed doors, I am sure Family services would eventually nab them. It will go to a judge again, maybe that can be brought up at the next trial, so when Osborns have to pay for damages to their neighbor, her children will be taken to a safe place, until she can meet all the requirements and legally, and safely take her kids back home. Here's a better idea, call Channel 9 news, Union Leader, plaster it on the front page for "Unfit parents in Atkinson" fail to make safe environment for children, then the whold state can view you, and the Town for all the mistakes. I think the both of you, need some devine intervention with religion for your demons inside you, or maybe an excorcism.

tim dziechowski said...

I sure hope Family Services has better things to do than worry about the Osborn kids. Like maybe dealing with the three or four thousand homeless kids in NH. A lot of them are living with their families in unsafe environments like the woods.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns are homeless too. We need to protect their kids from their parents. They are in danger right here in Atkihnson.

Anonymous said...

Hey Daniel Osborn, where are you? Are you hiding under a rock with Maggie waiting for the bus to run over you? Have you seen the latest court decision?

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Plotting+ex-wife+gets+7-14+years+in+jail&articleId=14addb23-2910-4e11-8279-d6466abd6fe5

You people like to file false reports with the Atkinson Police Dept. in order to divert attention from yourselves?

Guessing your problems are just beginning.

Wishing you and yours the best of Thanksgivings, like you have put your neighbors through the last few years!

Couldn’t happen to better people before they are put out in the TRASH where they belong.

Anonymous said...

Is Jack Sapia still a strong supporter of the Osborns? How about it JACK, are you still running around saying what great people they are? How's that being inducted into the Lion's club working for you? You and CON-sentio still trying to work that angle?

Anonymous said...

Sapia was a selectman? Oh ya, he's select alright. He's the one that lied to the town and Paul Sullivan caught him in that lie. Sapia must have been hanging around with the Osborn's to long. It's rubbed off on him. Birds of a feather you know.

Anonymous said...

Лучшие [url=http://bukdub.ru]визитки[/url]. В блоге дозволено скачать книги про [url=http://bukdub.ru]визитки[/url], встречать координаты лучших дизайнеров, разместить примеры своих работ и познакомиться с программами для создания [url=http://bukdub.ru]визиток[/url].

Anonymous said...

If police, school officials, fire department nurses or doctors. know a child is living in unsafe conditions abused or neglected. they are required by law to notify child services. If they don't they can be held responsible for their actions.

And here is good one also

The police lieutenant also said he smelled a strong odor of alcohol when he approached the smashed car. An open malt liquor can was found near the driver's seat. Baldwin said the teen won't be charged in connection with the crash and police do not know if he had been drinking because they have not received the test results.

This is criminal in itself police deciding who to charge and not charge. I always thought it was up to the DA not Police but this is Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

It's also interesting to note that Frank Polito has not made any of his legal ramblings as comments to this article. It's like him to be the ball in a pinball machine, bouncing off anyone questioning his opinions with his own arrogant opinions about the law.

Could it be that he's going to now take the stand that he just didn't know at the time? That's is his stand in the Gary Brownfield RTK suit against him.

What a brass balled know it all, when in reality he is a nobody. Small in stature, and no morals. The only thing he is qualified to be is a political figure in Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

From what I'm reading, I hope the Osborns don't spend to much on Xmas presents because they will need that money for Carol Davis judgement. The Bath Maggie will take next will have no bubbles in the water. Maggie diva is about to go down the drain.

Couldn't happen to a better person. Only hope that Daniel will dive in the drain to save her and both go down the drain together.

What a sorry excuse of humanity they BOTH are. Let's hope they aren't PUCKED UP to live again.

So much for any more donations to the Town for political favors.

jmho Good riddens

Anonymous said...

What's interesting about this blog is how quickly the conversation spirals down to the point where children are being attacked because of what their last name is. You have no idea what those kids are going through and have no right to attack them. Sure, the issues around the family are well-documented and the court seems to be siding with Davis on the ROW. So celebrate your victories where appropriate, but the public stoning of the family is as distasteful as it always was and just reached a new low. The Osborns do have friends in this town and the relentless character attacks happening in this blog aren't going to change that. They're a good family caught in a pretty bad situation through a series of mistakes (like trusting town officials when they tell them what is okay). You're all going to say what you always say and I expect you'll gleefully attack those of us that defend them as the good people they are, but the bottom line is that this is a sad situation for all those involved.

Anonymous said...

The Osborns willfully took land they didn't own from another. That has been established by the court. They are thieves and crooks that will be made to pay for their crimes.

If you think they are such great people, invite them into your home and see what they steal from you when they leave.

Good honest people wouldn't want them within a hundred miles of their family. They belong in JAIL!

Anonymous said...

TO MAGGIE: anon November 30, 2010 2:29 PM

Quit pretending to be a good person or a good family. Quit trying to blame your problems on the town, when it is well documented in court documents that the town told you what you needed to do to get an OC. You on the other hand chose to be a thief!

You wanted to steal Mrs. Davis's land in order to have a driveway that wouldn't meet Fire Code. You did this intentionally and with malice of forethought! Your wish was Mrs. Davis to have a heart attack or financially go broke defending her property. The last thing you considered that she would fight back and win. You thought you would be able to buy her out, and when that didn't work: you continued to badger her.
You thought you could drive her out of town. What a pathetic little person you and Daniel are.

Hopefully when this is all over, you will be done in this town. The town will be done with people like you and allow the honest people of Atkinson to live their lives in peace.

Hopefully you will not have enough money left to buy influence anywhere ever again.

You are what you are and that isn’t pretty. You can’t change your spots. You will always be a thief.

jmhotugtjrs

Anonymous said...

HA THE OSBORNS POOR KIDS .......... YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM HARASSING THE DAVIS'S KIDS UNREAL ....THE DAVIS'S KIDS ARE BEING ABUSED PHCYSICALLY AND MENTALLY BY THESE KIDS . WERE ARE THEY LEARNING THESE BEHAVIORS FROM HMMMMM...... THERE BULLY PARENTS MAYBEE!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anyone know how Maggie made out in court today?

Anonymous said...

Maggie and Daniel will be in court the 13th & 14th of this month. Countdown starts now! 10 days to go.

Anonymous said...

Wow, who is the IDIOT that writes in all upper case text anyway? Can't spell, can't put a complete sentence together, can't see that demonizing children is unhealthy and really, really bad behavior. And by the way, I have no issue with the rest of you either, except for this blog troll who attacks children because of their last name. How despicable and irresponsible you are blog troll! Why not sign your name so we all know what a lowlife you are when we see you? Then again, maybe we already know who you are?

Anonymous said...

Hey Osborns, I hope your hearing went well today! You do have friends in town, even if some people can't grasp that. And since you've been in my house and we managed to survive the experience without a single thing being stolen and not a single threat to our family's well-being you're always welcome!

And guess what? We vote too! We just don't spend our entire lives on the blog hating others.

Anonymous said...

No.

The Osborn's took land they knew, or at least firmly suspected they had no right to take. They were told in court to proceed at their own peril. Any reasonable person would have put on the brakes and not proceeded.

The town is a fault because they continue to support (by lack of stopping the Osborn's) and are complicit. The unqualified police department and the BOS are implicated here.

The Osborn kids have been taunting the Davis' kids on the bus and now they are targets themselves.

The Osborn's did this to themselves with help from the usual band of corrupt suspects and you can no longer say they are a good fmaily, poor them. They did this and is you really read the documentation (the site plans etc) you woult get it!!!) They should stop going around town and pleading their weak case to the parents of their kids friends.

Anonymous said...

I agree the kids both Osborn's and Davis should be left out of it, they are too young to understand what's going on. It's unfortunate that Osborns kids will "Learn by doing what they see" from their parents tactics. I doubt they will be poor, they will have to pay, and probably will get the house to code after everyone in Town make the Town rip down her unpermitted size house, cause there is no way residents of Atkinson are going to allow after this is all said and done have the down permit the C/O with the size difference. Besides meeting all the other codes, needed to bring to code, and be over with this. Maybe Osborns can permit a portion of their land to Davis family for an action of being sorry, besides the monetary part too. Unfortunately there are going to be fueding neighbors for as long as all of them live there. I hope Town officials suffer the consequences also for not doing their jobs. We need new people that know what to do. I am not condemning all town employee's there are good ones. Don't believe that if officials are forced out, that someone else with experience wouldn't consider the job. What's up with a Chief of Police who can't give up his position, and retire, and give the job to someone deserving waiting for that position. Can't wait for December court hearings, even though lengthy time, all will go down in Atkinson history. Ha maybe it will make the news, how embarrasing for a beutiful town.

Anonymous said...

Could someone succinctly describe how town officials (BOS, ZBA, Police) are complicit in the Osborn-Davis civil dispute?

What specific powers of enforcement did they fail to exercise, or what powers did they exercise they should not have?

Anonymous said...

Read.

Anonymous said...

I have read... and read and read.

And what I'm still missing is how are the ZBA / BOS / Police or any other town entity responsible, in any way, for the actions taken by the Osborns?

Anonymous said...

Give me a break. The whole thing was allowed by them, with their blessings. False arrests, permits on others land, etc. Read.

Anonymous said...

To 12/7 8:39
Presumably the Osborns received a Driveway Permit from the Road Agent, possibly under false pretenses where they asserted having land rights they may not have. This is being decided in a civil proceeding where it belongs.

You tell me to read where the Osborns received "blessing" from town entities to do what they did. I see several anonymous accusations to that affect here on the blog... are these what you are telling me to read (and then automatically believe)?

I was hoping you could point me to something a bit more credible... like maybe newspaper accounts, or meeting minutes.

Anonymous said...

It is FACT, not presumably the Osborns received a Driveway Permit from the Road Agent.

It is FACT, the Osborn's under false pretenses asserted having land rights they did not have.

It is FACT, that Maggie Osborn signed the driveway permit as owner of property she did not own.

It is FACT, the selectmen were warned that the Osborn's didn't own the property which the Osborn's constructed their driveway.

You want proof? Go to town office and READ the application yourself.

Anonymous said...

Newspaper accounts are not 'reliable' they are opinion. Meeting minutes, especially in this town, are abbreviated and slanted.

The town blessed the Osborn's with a permit across someone else's land when they had a clue that it wasn't her property. The town should have been more prudent.

Anonymous said...

To 12/7, 6:29 PM
Let us agree that the four facts you cite are indeed true.

1. Is it the Road Agent's job to go to Brentwood to research deeds to verify legal ownership of every application he receives? How about Building Permits? Car titles and Drivers licenses? Dog licenses? People can lie on all these applications and more.

2. Isn't it the job of the courts (criminal or civil) to make final determination on the accuracy of Osborn's claims and representations? Anf if not accurate, assign damages to those wronged by their actions? (What I'm really saying is that your Facts 2 and 3 are not yet facts until the courts say they are facts. Or would you prefer the police or BOS act against the Osborns simply on your say-so?)

3. How about a nasty divorce situation? Or alleged child abuse? Or a simple lot-line dispute? Would you have the Police or BOS taking unilateral action in these cases before a judicial review? Would they once again look to you for guidance on how to act?

It does appear the Osborns acted outside their rights. But the court will make that determination.

But faulting the town for this unpleasant situation is simply placing blame in the wrong direction.

Anonymous said...

Or look at it this way.

Assume the BOS DID act against the Osborns without judicial review as many here seem to wish they did. Assume the Police or BOS shut-down the excavation, because, after all, everyone just "knows" the Osborns don't have rights to do what they did.

But then imagine, just imagine some ancient deed or whatever turns up that DOES extend them the right to do what they did.

Where would the town be then? The target of another big fat lawsuit with you all screaming about misdeeds by the BOS.

Taking no action and letting the civil judicial process handle the matter is EXACTLY what the BOS should have done. They acted properly.

This does not mean the Davis's may not have been wronged, it only means the town has no place in that fight between the Davis's and Osborns.

Anonymous said...

1. The road agent knew (as did the town) that the Osborn's didn't own the land well BEFORE they issued the permit.

2. This case did not need to go to court, IF the town had heeded the warnings of non-ownership.

FACT: The court has already stated in its denial of summary judgment that the Osborn's have not proved their case of the property ownership

FACT: Maggie Osborn signed the driveway permit as owner of the property. (See court documentation)

3. If the police, (selectmen, zoning/planning boards) were aware a crime was going to happen, and refused to investigate when complaints are filed with them: they should be held accountable and prosecuted.


jmho

Anonymous said...

You are making my point.

FACT: The court ruled that the Osborns could not prove ownership. The court made this ruling (I believe) LAST MONTH.

Yet you would have had the Road Agent / BOS / ZBA / PB acting against the Osborns LAST SPRING, way before any legal opinion on the merits of their application had been rendered. Here in December, you have the benefit of hindsight.

But is that REALLY the way you want the town to operate... to act against one side or another in a civil matter on their own interpretation of "FACTS" outside-of or before judicial review? Yikes, watta slippery slope that would be!

The Davis's may have been wronged, and the civil proceeding will make that determination and assess damages if appropriate. That's where their relief (if due) should come from.

To those of you saying the town should have acted against the Osborns many months ago, PLEASE DO NOT VOLUNTEER OR RUN FOR ANY TOWN OFFICES. Getting the town involved in civil fights where it does not belong is a recipe for real disaster and legal liability.

Anonymous said...

This is not a matter of hindsight, it’s a matter of what town officials knew or should have known before they issued any permits to the Osborns.

The FACT that they did know and did little WAS the recipe for real disaster and legal liability.

The FACT that town officials issued those permits, (pitting one neighbor against the other, resulting in unnecessary civil actions) showed favoritism of one taxpayer over another.

The FACT that all the civil actions to date (caused by town official's actions then inaction), will result in more civil actions against the town.

If town officials had used a little common sense (along with the evidence provided to them), all the current and future civil actions, could have been avoided. The FACT they didn't apply common sense speaks to the moral fiber and intelligence of our current and past boards.

The FACT that you want to PUSH every situation you can't (or won't handle) into court because you don't have any common sense: is the reason you and others are in court.

If you just happen to be a town official, PLEASE don't run again! We can't afford all the legal civil or criminal suits you cause. This town can't afford to have officials with NO COMMON SENSE.

It's a recipe for real disaster and legal liability.

It's the reason we can't allow you to oversee zoning board regulations. You almost ruined Carol Davis financially.

If you are a town official, you should be ashamed of yourself, not trying to justify yourself.

MAcciard said...

I remember the ZBA meeting where Chairman polito announced that the dispute over the ownership of the underlying land was a civil matter and not within the purview of the board. From this point on the board ignored the clause requiring Mrs. Osborn to prove ownership.

I think this is what troubles me. a person applies for a building permit. Someone else purporting to be the owner of the property upon which the proposed building will be erected states that she owns the land and the applicant has no right to it. Others implore the town to recognize the rights of the owner. The town claims ownership is a civil matter, and issues the building permit.

Would it have been too much to ask, for the town to simply refuse to issue the building permit until the applicant, can show some legal claim to the other persons property?

Anonymous said...

SHE WILL GET AWAY WITH THIS YOU WATCH THIS WOMAN BUYS HERSELF OUT OF EVERYTHING SICK REALLY BUT TRUE!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

We'll see. This time I think she has herself in a real jam.

If the civil ruling goes against the Osborns and there is strong evidence that they knowingly falsified their permit application, I hope the BOS refers the situation to the county DA for criminal consideration.

Like many here, I'm not confident our own police always act on the up-and-up; so I'd like to see it referred directly to the DA.

Anonymous said...

I see that the upper case text idiot is back again. I was hearted by the intelligent dialoq that was beginning to take place in this blog and then, wham, UCTI strikes again. At least he's backed off the kids for a few minutes. Acciard, perhaps you reprimanded your friend? I certainly hope so. It doesn't help your own case when you associate with people like that. It was bad enough when he was lobbing personal attacks on people who are terminally ill - I mean that was LOW, but then he starts in on these kids. Not at all smart as you build your case of "good versus evil".

Anonymous said...

What would you people do without the Osborns? I mean, how much Chief bashing can you really do anyway? Who are you going to demonize next?

Personally, I'm hoping for a settlement between the Osborns and Davis. I'd never expect it when her "legal advisors" are bloggers, but hey, we can hope for people who seek the middle ground?

Anonymous said...

You State:

It is not up to the town to question or verify the accuracy of application information. All signed applications are considered valid and accurate as submitted and permits are issued if provided information complies with permitting regulations.

Yet: you state that the town is obligated to issue requested permits, knowing it is a lie?

How sad and pathetic your argument is. COMMON SENSE would better serve.

With that attitude and selectmen'a approval.............see you in court.

You proved our position. Now who wlll pay damages.


Back to court again, at taxpayers expense. Thank you Selectmen. (as the prop turns)

How stupid can one system be?

We need town officials with common sense, not educated fools.

jmho

Anonymous said...

Inferring criminal intent is a stretch. But as an anonymous blogger, I guess you can write whatever you want without having to worry about it. Guess it's easier for the blog crowd to say the Atkinson Police are "in on it" (because that's consistent with your anti-town attitude anyway) than to face the facts that the only people being arrested are people who are attacking this family.

Anonymous said...

To anon December 8, 2010 4:06 PM

If the Osborn's were not here in
Atkinson, never allowed by the ZBA to build three times with their illegal applications, we would have no Osborn problems. Osborns caused their own problems with town approval, sooooooooooooo more civil court actions.

No Osborn's no extra civil actions at taxpayer/selectmen expense.

No Osborns...........NO PROBLEMS.

When will the taxpayers of Atkinson realize the OSBORNS are not good for Atkinson? When will the Selectmen realize the Osborn's are thiefs?

Anonymous said...

To 4:13

You win, I cannot persuade you that there are such things as "equal treatment" and "due process".

Henceforth, all Osborn applications should be automatically presumed to be full of lies and summarily denied.

Your applications, on the other hand, should naturally be assumed to be accurate and summarily approved.

Since you are so good at being judge and jury, perhaps you can also advise the town how to handle my applications... and the Jones's and the Smith's.

And as to your assertion that the town will be brought to court from all this... brought to court by whom, for what cause and what damages?

Anonymous said...

TO Anon December 8, 2010 4:06 PM

Thank you Maggie for your comment. It's to late for your wish of a middle ground settlement. You had that chance many times, and refused. Now that the Court has ruled that you have no ownership of Carol Davis's property, the Court will rule as to what you owe. There will be no settlement agreement. You are done. Town of Atkinson next.

Anonymous said...

To 4:25
You may be right that inferring criminal intent goes too far at this point. But that reference was qualified by indicating the civil case findings had to present strong evidence of such wrongdoing.

But I will say this. It does appear that the Osborns have a consistent pattern where they have not seemed to work with others in "good faith".

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 8, 2010 4:52 PM

Real Honest taxpayers of Atkinson are not your Mother. Taxpayers presume you are an adult. Taxpayers are not going to hand feed you to survive. Pay attention, read or fade out of your responsibilities.

Honest taxpayers don't want people like you, who fade out to the truth. There is only ONE TRUTH to make an honest decision. Honest taxpayer's fear you can't be relied on to make the intelligent decision. There is a reason for that fear. Are you a town official?

Anonymous said...

To Mark:
You said "From this point on the board ignored the clause requiring Mrs. Osborn to prove ownership."

What clause are you referring to? In what application or regulation?

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 8, 2010 10:58 AM Why no response to Anon December 8,2010 1:13 PM

Perhaps the average taxpayer could make a decision on the truth of this matter.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 8, 2010 4:52 PM

Thank you for saying taxpayers win. It's about time. Taxpayers believe the courts will agree with you and the Taxpayers.

We believe in equal treatment under the law, now what are you going to to about it to insure that happens? Selectmen won't do it, so what are you going to to
to insure they do?

Anonymous said...

To 12/8 6:49
I'm guessing you see it differently, but in the Davis-Osborn case the BOS did provide equal treatment. They took NEITHER side in this private dispute.

Like it or not, the Osborns are citizens too.

Longer explanation in the post of 12/9 6:37 AM. The town is best-served by steering clear of private-party civil disputes and letting justice be determined in the courts.

Anonymous said...

Maybe so but it would be nice if they also did something about the criminals. Not acting when there are criminal violations can also get the town in trouble.....and I don't mean the same old selective biased application of the law, I mean proper and appropriate police enforcement. Is this really too much to ask?

Anonymous said...

Wait until the next scandal hits the blog. Another case is coming up with the same old pattern of behavior. Selective treatment by town officials where there is criminal violations and civil liability.

Anonymous said...

Mark Said:
"Would it have been too much to ask, for the town to simply refuse to issue the building permit until the applicant, can show some legal claim to the other persons property?"

Yes, odd as it may sound, it is too much to ask.

You'd want the town (Road Agent? BOS? ZBA?) to sort out complicated claims and counter-claims of property rights and ownership and then act one way or the other (grant-or-deny the permit)? On what legal basis does the town challenge one application but approve another...based on town hearsay, or blog postings, or (possibly baseless) complaints from abutters?

Some here have indicated the town should have applied "Common Sense" based on the "Facts" and intervened in some way on Davis's behalf against the Osborns.

I look at it this way... the town acted properly. It did not side with either the Davis's or Osborns... it sided with the 8,000 rest-of-us who really have no dog in this fight, and kept the town way far away from direct involvement (and potential liability).

I sympathize with the Davis's. If facts turn out as they now appear, they will prevail and hopefully receive an appropriate settlement. But the town should not be their protector, nor place itself in this fight.

Anonymous said...

To 12/9 8:41 AM
Could you (or anyone else) be more specific on where you believe criminal behavior occurred?

Anonymous said...

This case should be prosecuted as criminal trespassing. They plowed forward and they at least knew they did not OWN the land. They knew there were doubts about their ROW as well.

You do not need a smoking gun to arrest and prosecute people. The town did it to Artis and Dubrov already. I expect them to do the same to the Osborn's if they lose this civil case.

One cannot use the excuse that they thought they had a right to do this. If a cop saw you run a red light and your excuse was that you thought it was yellow, you would still be prosecuted for it.

Anonymous said...

Anyone know...
the status of this week's hearings between Osborns and the Town? I believe it was to rule on the Town's efforts to evict them from the home until it has an Occupancy Permit (and maybe rule on mounting fines too).

Anonymous said...

Interesting for me//
/

Anonymous said...

This is good site to spent time on. allergy

Anonymous said...

[url=http://kinogrill.org/]smotert kino[/url]
[url=http://kinogrill.org/filmi/smotret-tv-online/radio-online]радио онлайн скачать бесплатно[/url]


КиноГриль представляет собой огромный свод киноработ, которые можно увидеть онлайн. Ресурс имеет внушительное количество кинокартин самых разнообразных жанров, производства государств всего мира. Пользователь сможет найти и посмотреть кинофильм на любой вкус - от классики мирового киноискусства середины прошлого века и до последних кинолент, которые не так давно вышли на киноэкраны.
Нет нужды ждать полной загрузки кинокартины, терять время на загрузку – фильм онлайн не занимает пространство в памяти компьютера пользователя. Он может наслаждаться просмотром фильма сразу после запуска плеера.
При просмотре кинофильмов на КиноГриль не нужно регистрироваться, платить, а также заполнять разные анкеты. Также не нужно устанавливать какие-то плагины или приложения. Все видеофильмы, размещенные на этом портале, проигрываются на любом ПК. Все что надо для начала просмотра – это наличие хорошего браузера, имеющего поддержку флеш-плеера. Скорость при просмотре кинофильмов зависит только от качества Интернет-соединения пользователя. Все ссылки на кинофильмы являются рабочими, за этим внимательно следит персонал портала, который делает все для того, дабы доставить удовольствие от удобного просмотра кинолент на этом портале.

[url=http://kinogrill.org/]смотреть новинки фильмы онлайн бесплатно без регистрации[/url]
[url=http://kinogrill.org/filmi/smotret-seriali/spartak-krov-i-pesok-1seson]спартак кровь и песок 1 сезон в hd смотреть онлайн[/url]