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.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Illegal occupancy will cost Osborns $122,375

From the Eagle Tribune;

December 19, 2010
Illegal occupancy will cost Atkinson couple $122,375

By Cara Hogan chogan@eagletribune.com The Eagle Tribune Sun Dec 19, 2010, 12:30 AM EST

ATKINSON — It cost Margaret and Daniel Osborn more than $500 a day for each of the 223 days they lived in their 8 Valcat Lane home.

The Osborns must pay the town of Atkinson $122,375 in civil penalties for living in their home without an occupancy certificate, Rockingham County Superior Judge Kenneth McHugh ruled Thursday. The couple also must pay the attorney fees the town incurred fighting the matter in court.

The town ordered the Osborns to install a sprinkler system in their home because it was not easily accessible by fire and other emergency vehicles. A building permit issued in May 2008 specified the necessity for a sprinkler system.

But the Osborns didn't install one and moved in anyway, occupying the house from Nov. 30, 2009 until July 10 this year.

McHugh ordered the Osborns to pay statutory penalties of $275 for the first offense for living there without the certificate and $550 for each subsequent offense — incurred daily.

"They didn't have the necessary occupancy permit," town attorney Sumner Kalman said Friday. "The town sent them a cease-and-desist notice as of Dec. 14 (2009), and they had five days to conform to regulations and they ignored that. The town told them again and again to comply, but it took until the spring of 2010 for the town to go for legal action. It was a long process and it's not like the town didn't give the Osborns enough time."

The Osborns received a $5,700 cost estimate for a sprinkler system in May 2008. But they tried to avoid the need for such a system by building a new driveway instead, according to court documents. A proposed driveway plan, with a grade of 23 percent, was submitted to the town in October 2008. The town immediately deemed that plan as "not acceptable."

The Osborns did have two avenues of appeal, McHugh noted in his decision, but did not take advantage of either one of them. Margaret Osborn testified she wasn't aware of the right to appeal, although she was a member of the Atkinson Zoning Board of Adjustment for two years while that board considered her request to build the home.

Fire Chief Michael Murphy wrote in May 2008 that a sprinkler system should be a condition of a building permit. The town building inspector adopted Murphy's recommendation and made it a construction requirement.

McHugh called the case an issue of "he said, she said," with arguments back and forth between Margaret Osborn and Murphy, along with other town officials.

"The important thing in this case is there was a disagreement between Mrs. Osborn and the chief between what was said in a meeting," Kalman said. "Only one could be believed and it was quite obvious the judge believed Chief Murphy. Mrs. Osborn's story was just not reasonable. It was a good decision."

The Osborns could not be reached for comment Friday. Their attorney, Bernard Campbell, said he had not read the decision and could not comment on it.

If the Osborns install a sprinkler and have the house inspected, they could qualify for an occupancy permit and move in legally, Kalman said.

Town Manager Phil Smith said he is glad the case is completed.

"We want to put it behind us and move onto other things," he said.

252 comments:

1 – 200 of 252   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

Nice to see the Tribune finally did a follow up on the Osborn problems.

Wow, $122,375 in fines would kill most of people, but I'm sure it's just one months mortgage payment for them. No sweat, they have it. Daniel bragged that no one could stop him, but looks like judge McHugh and the Town of Atkinson have stopped him in his tracks.

NICE! It's about time.

Can hardly wait to see how judge Lewis WACKS HIM!

Anonymous said...

Kalman said. "Only one could be believed and it was quite obvious the judge believed Chief Murphy. Mrs. Osborn's story was just not reasonable.

What? Of course it wasn't reasonaable! Everytime Daniel or Maggie open their mouth, a lie comes out. DAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Where are ALL the Osborn supporters comments? Does it take a jusge's decision to shut them up, or has Maggie's only friend Maggie left town? LOL

MAcciard said...

It wasn't reasonable, because Maggie claimed that Murphy told her if they built the driveway they didn't have to sprinkle, no mention of a grade. But then she sent a procession of plans for the driveway for approval, the first with a 23% grade which was immediately rejected, and the following three with descending grade projections. In addition to this, she wrote a letter, asking about the grade.

Anonymous said...

Maggie and judge McHugh went up the hill, so Maggie could SHOUT him down. McHugh NEVER BLINKED as she threw in the kitchen sink, and then he proceeded to SMACK HER DOWN!

MCHUGH 1. Maggie 0.


NEXT.................

Anonymous said...

What's that in Osborn's xmas stockings, COAL?

Anonymous said...

Hey Atkinson reporter regulars, Bill Friel, Bill Bennett, Phil Smith et al where is all this $ that the Osborns will be paying the town going to go? You won why not take the attorney fees and wait for the sprinklers to be installed and then move on like the TA said. If not maybe this is really a personal vendetta against these people, take the high road selectmen, unless you are afraid of bigbrother (L.A.) Don't worry he is probably still celebrating (you know.. tossing a few back). I hope he doesnt get behind the wheel he could hit someone then it will be his turn on the hot seat.

Anonymous said...

Hey December 20, 2010 9:20 AM. Why don't you rewrite this in a coherent form after you've sobered up.

Anonymous said...

Don't pay any attention to December 20, 2010 9:20 AM, it's just Maggie having her morning glass(s) of champagne with her breakfast. After the beating she took in court, who could blame her? Take it easy, she's so fragile you could shatter her. Those of us who are her friends are afraid she'll become self destructive. It's the Christmas Season, Lighten up!

Anonymous said...

Hey, wait a minute. The Osborn's are still living at 8 Valcat. As a neighbor, I can tell you they never moved out after the judge ordered them out. Are selectmen going to continue to let her live there, or are they going to do something to get them out?

WTH

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Maggie shouldn't be driving today.

Anonymous said...

Did any one really win anything ? Will the $122,375 pay for the injuries the town has had to endure because of the ignorant many, not few , who failed to abide by the law[s] and correctly enforce them? Don't be surprised if the insurance company will be looking for all or part of the money after the lawyers take their share. I guess that old saying of choosing wisely at the ballot box is a good thing for all to do in the next election -- that is if you do vote with your conscience.

Anonymous said...

9:20
so let me get this straight. for 3 years the Osborns have been fighting everybody, claiming thier right to build across a neighbors land, and NOW that they have been ordered to comply with the law, YOU think THE TOWN should back off and let them continue to live there, and NOt have to pay the fines for ignoring the law for so long?

If the town doesnt enforce their laws equally then they cant enforce them at all. Ask Mr. Mason how he feels that he has been ordered to tear down 400 sq.ft. of his garage that is bigger than permit says, but Maggie can have a house 1800 sq.ft. bigger than her permit says?

Anonymous said...

Merry Christmas Mags.

With any luck they'll be a decision on the Davis suit next week.

Then it will be Happy New Year Mags.

tim dziechowski said...

"Don't be surprised if the insurance company will be looking for all or part of the money after the lawyers take their share."

The town's insurance doesn't cover zoning matters. That is why the town was represented by Sumner Kalman rather than the insurance company's lawyer. The insurance company was not involved, and gets nothing.

State law requires the loser of a land use lawsuit such as this to pay the legal expenses of the town. Sumner will be submitting a legal bill to the court within a month and the Osborns will be directed to pay that as well.

The entire $122,375 by law will go into the general fund, where it will be used to offset property taxes. With around 3000 properties in Atkinson, your taxes will go down by about $40.

Merry Christmas.

Anonymous said...

To 12/20 11:49 AM

You said "Will the $122,375 pay for the injuries the town has had to endure because of the ignorant many, not few , who failed to abide by the law[s] and correctly enforce them?"

Please elaborate on who / what you mean by "the ignorant many"? We now know the Osborns failed to abide by the law. Who in your opinion failed to correctly enforce the laws? How did they fail?

To my eyes, the Selectmen followed due process against a recalcitrant non-cooperative adversary.

Anonymous said...

Does that mean all taxpayers need to send a xmas card to Mags thanking her for helping us pay our taxes?

Anonymous said...

Leon Artus says:

Please remember that our selectmen were the ones that brought suit against the Osborn's and won on the behalf of the taxpayers of Atkinson.

I believe we all owe Mr. Friel, Mr. Childs and Mr.Bennett a round of applause in dealing with the illegal behavior of the Osborns.

They gave the Osborns all the time in the world to comply with their orders, and were more than fair before they brought their lawsuit. They showed restraint, patience, and fairness beyond the call of duty, and I for one would like to thank them. I would hope that others do the same.

Anonymous said...

So the Osborn's had no comment for the Tribune article. I wonder why? This is the first time her or Daniel haven't tried to deflect attention from themselves by blaming others.

Wonder if they are going to threaten Judge McHugh with a defamation suit for saying and publishing what Atkinson taxpayers have been telling town officials for years. Perhaps they will have Consentino arrest Judge McHugh on a trumpt up charge. Wouldn’t that be funny?

Anonymous said...

Tat would be REALLY funny considering that it was Judge McHugh who issued the Order for Chief to stop dealing with police matters as a selectman, and ten It was McHugh who also issued the Contempt of Court Order against the Chief.

Anonymous said...

To December 20, 2010 10:33 AM

Now that the selectmen are on a roll, perhaps they are going to enforce the eviction notice. Let's watch to see what they do and when.

DAH.............

Anonymous said...

The Court just DID!

Anonymous said...

Yes the court did, but the Osborns are still living in the house at 8 Valcat.

The new question is when will the selectmen bring a Contempt of Court suit against them, and send a sheriff to take them out in handcuffs? Additional fines are due the town and should be collected in addition to the $122,375. Let's see if they act and collect. Let's see if the selectmen give the Osbons a pass on that. They need to finish the job they started.

MO

Anonymous said...

You may all hate me for this, although I am definately not a Osborne fan. Let them stay in the house for Christmas for their children's sake. The kids don't understand how their parents function. Let the kids have Xmas, it will be the last time they are in that house before it will have to be torn down, or taken over by the town for non payment lien. Evict them the day after.

MAcciard said...

I agree with you. No matter how abominable the parents behavior, it is 5 days before Christmas, For the kids sake, delay enforcement for a week.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry to say I do not agree, though I understand the hardship on the children. But you make your bed... you must sleep in it.

A home unfit for occupancy (the town's core argument) is just that; last week, today and until the fire safety issues are satisfied. If the authorities were to drag their feet and there were a fire or other emergency, I'd guess the town could have some culpability. It is not a smart position for the town to take.

If we were talking about the bunkhouse / boathouse, then sure, defer until after Christmas. But life safety issues should not be compromised.

Anonymous said...

I would have to say that after the courts decision to pay the town the $122k plus that the Osborn's will declare bankruptcy and the town will get nothing. That is unless Kalman steps in with some legal remedy which I think wouldn't happen in time. The wheels of justice grind surely but slowly and if the selectmen and Kalman do nothing asap the Osborn's will be free to laugh at the town. You have to take into acct. the Osborn's may have a right of appeal on some if not all findings that can cause enough delay for them to declare bankruptcy. As has been said by someone earlier who would want to buy the home knowing all the problems that have lead up to this,as I see it ,tragedy for all concerned.If the home has to come down what would the lot be used for? It could be used as a town beach or recreational area at the detriment of the neighbors. Give this some thought before you say THE TOWN ,IN VICTORY ,GOT WHAT IT DESERVED IN PAYMENT by decision of the court. To Tim, The insurance companies and lawyers that represent the town in any and all matters are very devious when it costs them. If you think they aren't looking into recovery of monies your fooling your self because of their payouts of the many suits thus far. To anon. at 5:15 , Due process takes time to evict any one from a residence owned or not . You fail to see that..

Anonymous said...

To 5:56

Try again tomorrow... and stay away from the eggnog.

In a blog where many make little sense, you're right up there with the best of 'em.

Anonymous said...

Town should bring down the Osborn's before xmas, because of public saftey issues. House burns, someone dies, town will have a lawsuit.

Osborn's need to go NOW........kids will be safer someplace else.......taxpayers won't get to have to pay the bill.

As the judge said the Osborn's brought this upon themselves, taxpayers don't need to pony up the money if something goes wrong.

Osborn's need to go bankrupt, lose the property, and town needs to bring in an honest person to finish the project where tax dollars can be collected.

Osborn's had their chance and are TOAST for their actions. Time for a clean sweep with new players.

Merry Christmas Osborns.........the court has given the best xmas present Atkinson could receive.

Osborn's..........take a hike. Selectmen, thanks for our new world order without the Osborns.

tim dziechowski said...

"Town should bring down the Osborn's before xmas, because of public saftey issues. House burns, someone dies, town will have a lawsuit."

The town can't be sued for anything that happens to anyone living at 8 Valcat Lane, because it has no frontage on an approved town road.

Under RSA 674:41, the Osborns had to record a waiver of municipal liability before the town could issue them a building permit. Because of that, any lawsuit would be thrown out of court.

Anonymous said...

To 7:23, Even if I were only half right in what I wrote then it is a lot better than yourthinking. If you know any thing about law at all you'd know it takes time to evict. As for being up with the best of them as you claim I'd rather be among them than you. Your upset because your not in the majority of the towns citizenry. Yes, I too, have feelings for the children and with some reluctance the parents having to move out of their home at this time or any time of the year. But then it is the parents fault not the children. I would hope from deep within my heart the children will never be labeled apples that didn't fall far from the tree in their future lives. I can not imagine planning any land/home building/purchase with out a lawyer involved to legally do so. If they had one he/she failed them in giving them lawful legal advise. Apparently they didn't and did what they alone wanted to do. If as you say I'm drinking eggnog then you best try drinking some and maybe ,just maybe ,it will help you in your thoughts of recognizing the majority of opinion in the Osborn case. Well thats it for now and I'm raising my glass to your ,hopefully so, successful drinking of eggnog.

Anonymous said...

I agree. Osborn's need to go before Xmas. We heard the same thing last year: "But is Xmas"! “What about the Kids”? Osborn's used that excuse last year and the year before. They got away with it then, but with the Court Order, the Selectmen can't buy that excuse this year. It's (as the OSBORN'S argued in years past) a life safety issue and nothing has changed.

Selectmen must evict OSBORNS BEFORE xmas to protect the rest of us taxpayers. (Most fires happen in winter)
Anything else would be a dereliction of their duty.

Osborn’s knew what could happen and did nothing to stop it. Selectmen should do everything now to keep it from happening.

Osborn's go, selectmen stay. That is the reality of this situation.

Sorry Osborn's you must go and go now. It's a public safety issue.

MO

Anonymous said...

Obviously Maggie December 20, 2010 9:07 PM is into the eggnog and stressing. (No wonder, she's been into the booze all day)

No need to feel sorry for her, because she had no feeling for Carol Davis as she was trying to destroy her last Christmas. Carol stayed sober thru it all, and Osborn's deserve NO sympathy.

Osborn's need to be put out of their house NOW! Nothing else would serve JUSTICE!

Hope you feel better when you wake up in the morning Maggie, but you and Daniel brought this upon yourselves.

You reap what you soe, and this is your harvest. Now sit down an eat it like the vermon you are.

If bankrupcy is your only choice, than so be it. Couldn't happen to better people. Someone else will fill the void and clean up your mess.

CHEERS AND MERRY XMAS


jmhooto

Anonymous said...

I think it is time to reflect on this time of year. There are a lot of people who get depressed and take their lives and others as well. I'm not saying the Osborns will do any thing to hurt themselves or others, however, if some thing were to happen I wouldn't want to have been a part of it by the ongoing constant badgering on this site. Its Xmas and it is a time for peace and happiness not for hateful thoughts and actions. It seems to me there are a lot of hipocrits walking into their houses of worship on Saturdays and Sundays in town. Maybe the clergy will have some thing to say about this in their message of Xmas.

Anonymous said...

The Osborn's don't practice God's love, they engage in the Devil's work. It's their way of life. They have hurt so many, while helping (?) only themselves. Helping themselves at others expense.

Anonymous said...

Again 12/21 @ 845A.M. You say the Osborn's are of the devils work and you use God's love as a fall back on excusing your own hypocritic thinking and to further hurt every one and them . I guess I'm right in saying you and some others are hipocrits that practice holy than tho on certain occasions. Usually ,as it appears to me only as yet,that its when you go to your house of worship ,that is if you go at all. I'm not a supporter of the Osborn's but I am a supporter of legal rights and law w/i itself. I'm not a holy roller nor am I the christian I,d like to be but you seem to be a non believer of belief as I see it . If you were then you would be welcoming the time of peace and would look at all the past posts from its beginnings about the Osborns. I can say your very predujice and self thinking and not of one who thinks of anyone else. Do you even think about the laws ,no you don't , if you did then you wouldn't be so selfish of all others who do. We are governed by law and you should know that . The Osborn fiasco is for the most part over with. Why don't you just clam up for a while and stop spewing your dislikes [hate]and sit back to see what finally takes place. Better yet go to your place of worship and ask for forgiveness and guidance in your own life and if your open to it ask for the Osborn's as well. No need for a come back but there is a need for you to deeply reflect on your own self. Again , I am not siding with the Osborn's nor do I know them . There are four words that come to mind--Love,Hate,kill,and life, which do you chose. I can choose two and they are life and love- get the message?

Anonymous said...

I almost forgot! This applies to you and everybody else reading this and the prior . Merry Christmas and I wish you all a better New Year!!

Anonymous said...

Wow, looks like “Cranky Maggie” is awake and has a BIG HANGOVER! Have some of your usual champagne with your eggs, and you will feel better. Take two aspirin and post again when you can make sense.

Anonymous said...

Dumbell , I'm not an Osborn and most reading this know it except for those ignorant like yourself. Get a life and some love in your life as I mentioned. Above all shut up until you have some thing to really contribute.

Anonymous said...

LOL You're funny.

McHugh really got to you.

Anonymous said...

My gues is that the "eggnog" has gotten to you Bye bye little person

Anonymous said...

''Why don't you just clam up for a while and stop spewing your dislikes [hate]...''

''Dumbell , I'm not an Osborn and most reading this know it except for those ignorant like yourself. Get a life and some love in your life as I mentioned. Above all shut up until you have some thing to really contribute.''

Wow. Talk about hypocritical.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 21, 2010 1:19 PM

Don't pay attention to Anon

December 21, 2010 10:29 AM,
December 21, 2010 10:02 AM
December 21, 2010 9:41 AM
December 21, 2010 9:34 AM
December 21, 2010 7:05 AM

It's just Maggie having another BAD DAY. Thinking she's going to have many more, and will be miserable to live with. She's not happy unless she is making others miserable, and can't take it when it happens to her.

Right now she's running around like a chicken with her head cut off. Leave her be till she runs off a cliff, and you won't have to listen anymore.

God works in mysterious way. LOL

Merry Christmas

Anonymous said...

Hey Maggie............you going to bring suit against Town Officials or are you going to turn State's Evidence?

You're running out of options.

Wait much longer and States Evidence may be withdrawn.

You have a choice to make. Consider doing it soon.

Anonymous said...

Wake up Maggie, I think I've got something to say to you
It's late December and I really should be back at home
I know I keep you amused, but I feel I'm being used

Oh Maggie, I couldn't have tried any more
You led me away to court
Just to save you from being hurt
You stole my land and that's what really hurts
The morning sun when it's in your eyes really shows your age
But that don't worry me none, in my eyes you're nooothing
I laughed at all of your jokes, my love you didn't need to coax

Oh Maggie, you couldn't have lied any more
You led me away to court
Just to save you from being hurt

You stole my land and that's a pain I can do without
All I needed was a friend to lend a helping hand
But you turned into a liar and stealer
What a joke, you swore me out, all you did was mess with my head
And in the morning kick me in the head

Oh Maggie, you couldn't have lied any more
You led me away to court
'Cause you didn't want to be hurt

You stole my land, I couldn't leave here if I tried
I suppose I could collected my books and go on back to school
Or steal my daddy's cue and make a living at playing pool
Or find myself a rock and roll band, that needs a helping hand

Oh Maggie, I wished I'd never seen your face
You made a first class fool out of yourself
Cuz your brain’s the size of an elf

You stole my land and I cant stand you every day
I'd wished I’d never seen your face
I'll get you back, one of these days

Anonymous said...

SIGNED: Paul Shey

Anonymous said...

Anon 12/21 4:12PM

Don't quit your day job. ;)

Anonymous said...

Ok, enough. Be a graceful winner and hope she can be a graceful loser.

Anonymous said...

There is nothing graceful about Maggie. You should know that.

Anonymous said...

Hey everyone, make sure Osbornes dont try to sell their house, and try to stick someone with a house that has no C/O, and then the new owners will have to be forced to tear down and rebuild. They too would have to be in compliance with a 1400 sq foot home, She doesn't use realator's she sells herself and doesn't disclose things wrong with the house. The old owner had to fix everything that was shotty work, cause contractors walked off the job,(they couldn't stand working for her) heard she also took fixtures and switched stuff out. Maybe she will buy the house around the corner for sale and irritate other neighbors. At least its all done and still a waterfront, she would have a longer boat drive to the island. Her neighbors should put up some signs on their properties showing potential buyers to be "BUYER BEWARE" and directions. Town officials have a big decision to make very soon, otherwise Atkinson will have the largest class action lawsuit in it's history, a whole neighborhood of screwed people. Osborn's house has fallen down, fallen down, fallen down. Oh yeah Merry Xmas, Santa's not flying to your roof, he is skipping over to Davis home.

Anonymous said...

Okay, 50 comments of people slapping themselves on the back and congratulating themselves for the win. And more than a few kicks at the Osborns while they're down. Hope you're all enjoying the public stoning of the family. Reading this blog is similar to the feeling I get when I've seen one too many Bernie & Phil commercials: it's repetitive, mind-numbing and annoying. Wonder why the Osborn friends aren't writing in this thing? Because we're actually talking to them directly. Try it sometime - you might find them to be more graceful than the sorry anonymous idiot who wrote that comment about Maggie.

The Osborns continue to enjoy the friendship of many people in town, and while many ignore the blog altogether, a few of us will step in now and then in support of Maggie and Dan. Reading some of the taunts and illegible nonsense (that would be you Leon) written in these posts makes me feel just a little sorry for you for having so much hatred inside you. Look, they got slapped by the judge, their names are once again in the news, and the selectmen (those guys you called monkeys) "won". So go ahead and be smug winners taunting the Osborns and their friends, but you're the lesser for it.

Merry Christmas bloggers.

Anonymous said...

Finally, it appears justice will be served. Just waiting for the town to collect the $122,000 in fines, and for the Osborn family to move out of the illegal house they have been living in. Then put in new sprinkler system as their building permit specified. To finish off they still need to remove the bunkhouse/boathouse prior to certificate of occupancy. Then they can move back into the house they built. And hopefully the Davis vs Osborn case will be settled with the Osborn having to pay to restore the Davis property back to the way it was...and use Valcat land just like their neighbors do. Then & only then will justice be served.

Anonymous said...

12/21 2:25 You prefer that the 5 blogs you list be ignored. Why is it you do? Could it be you that is doing the devils deeds . I wonder about this because you do seem to have no regard for lawful remedy and christian principals.

Anonymous said...

My favorite people on this blog are those of you that feel like you've got your foot on the throat of this family and continue to press down. You're showing just how classy you are in doing so. So the blog maintains its place as a bully pulpit because of the behavior of a few particularly nasty people.

The Osborns are and have always been great people caught in a nightmare. How it happened WAS the issue before. Now its personal - the efforts to demonize this family, and particularly Maggie, have left a few of you with no empathy for what they're going through. The fact that the personal attacks continue after the court decision and during the week before CHRISTMAS says a lot about some of you. I'd love to have YOU move out of our town, but since that won't happen (who would take you?) perhaps you can gain a little perspective and play nice for a while?

(I'm under no illusions that you will)

Anonymous said...

I would not want to claim them as friends. We are all judged by the comany we keep and I do not want to associate with people who do this type of thing. I don't see how anyone who can defend them after all this trouble and they were not caught in a nightmare, they created it. Mrs. Davis was caught in it and I have no empathy for them because this was intentional.

Anonymous said...

What makes this case particularly egregious is the fact that the defendant took no
responsibility for its actions. It initially claimed that the alleged unreasonable stand taken
by the Fire Chief with respect to the sprinkler system issue was due to "political pressure".
It is not difficult to understand why some citizens and Town officials have become upset
with the defendant's conduct given the fact that it was so blatant.

Mrs. Osborn testified
. that she knew moving her family in the house without a Certificate of Occupancy was
against the law but claimed that she was "forced to" because the Town refused to accept
the driveway in its existing condition as an alternative to the installation of a sprinkler
system. Even if the Court accepted Mrs. Osborn's version of what took place at the
September 20,2008 meeting, which it does not, it is clear she knew by the Town's
rejection of her plans submitted one month later that it was not going to waive its condition
requiring the installation of a sprinkler system.

PART OF FINAL DECISION SIGNED BY JUDGE MCHUGH

It appears the Osborn's want to retry this case on the blog, and still not accept any responsibility for their decisions.

It is not difficult to understand why some citizens and Town officials have become upset
with the defendant's conduct given the fact that it was so blatant.

Anonymous said...

As I thought, your reading skills are quite limited and you have a hard time seeing through your hatred to digest what I wrote. It's clear that there were mistakes made along the way and the Osborns are paying a pretty stiff penalty for that. And yet you continue to kick dirt in their faces and recycle the case. Atkinson won, the Osborns lost. Their friends remarkably haven't suffered any injustice at their hands and we remain their friends because we believe what we experience not what you write. You're still behaving like a thug, they're remaining quiet and getting ready for the holidays. I give them credit for not reading this poison and perhaps I'll stop reading YOUR rehashing of the case (the highlight of your life?) as well.

Okay, your turn to have the last word again. Say something clever...

Anonymous said...

WOW, looks like Maggie took judge McHugh's foot and placed it at her own throat and HE pressed down on it just before Christmas, not town's people.

Judge McHugh has a "bully pulpit" and used it. He's considered a "CLASSY" guy by the judiciary and not "NASTY" at all. The fact that he had “no empathy” for the Osborns, is good enough for me. If he has none, then neither should we.

If Daniel, Maggie and Osborn supporters have a problem with what McHugh did just before Christmas, go take it up with him. The blog only reported on the results. If some here are more vocal than others regarding their feelings about what the Osborns did to them, then so be it. The Osborns brought it upon themselves. The judge agrees.

PS can all of the decision be posted here? That was neat. WE need to see all of it.

mo

Anonymous said...

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
T own of Atkinson
v.
Malborn Realty Trust
Docket No: 218-201 0-EQ-0065
FINAL ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT
The plaintiff filed this Petition for Injunction on March 3, 2010. Essentially it is an
enforcement action pursuant to RSA 676: 15. In the Petition the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant, through its Trustee and family, were living in a residential home that had not
received a Certificate of Occupancy. The Town claimed that when the defendant obtained
its building permit in May of 2008, a specific condition of construction was the installation
of a sprinkler system in the house. Because that condition was never satisfied, the Town
refused to allow anyone to occupy the structure. Nonetheless, the Town alleged that the
defendant's family moved into the house and continued to reside there despite receiving
several notices to vacate the premises. In addition to requesting an Injunction prohibiting
the defendant from living on the property until a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained,
the Town pursuant to RSA 676:17 sought fines and attorney fees. On March 23, 2010 a
hearing was held on the plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction. After hearing the
Court (Nadeau, J) found that the Town had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits and therefore ordered the defendant's to vacate the premises within thirty days.
On May 13, 2010 the defendant filed an extensive counter claim alleging that it
should be entitled to occupy the premises for the following reasons, to wit, that there is no
law requiring mandatory sprinklers for residential property in the Town of Atkinson; that the
access road constructed by the defendant is more than sufficient to satisfy the safety
concerns of the Town; and that the plaintiff is estopped from requiring sprinklers due to the
conduct and misrepresentation of the Atkinson Fire Chief.
On December 3 and 9, 2010, this Court conducted a Bench Trial in this case. Prior
to taking any evidence on the substantive dispute between the parties, the plaintiff asked
this Court to dismiss this case on the grounds that the defendant had failed to exhaust its
administrative remedies and therefore is now precluded from going forward on any of the
allegations set forth in the defendant's counter claim. The Town argued that the defendant
had two avenues of appeal which were not pursued regarding the Fire Chiefs decision
that the property had to be sprinkled and the ZBA's decision not to permit occupancy
without a sprinkler system being installed.
With respect to the Fire Chiefs decision, the plaintiff claims that an appeal should
have been taken to the State Fire Marshall. The law gives a municipal fire chief the
authority, based upon his or her assessment of safety needs, to make certain conditions
mandatory in residential construction. In this case the Atkinson Fire Chief determined that
because of the steep slope in the access to the defendant's property, fire equipment would
have a difficult time responding to an emergency. Thus he concluded that the installation
of a sprinkler system for safety reasons was a necessity. If the defendant disputed the
Fire Chiefs conclusion with respect to the safety issue, then the law prescribes a right of
appeal to the State Fire Marshall. That individual had the authority to overrule a municipal
fire chiefs determination as to the requirement of the installation of a sprinkler system in a
piece of property. No such appeal was ever taken.

Anonymous said...

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
T own of Atkinson
v.
Malborn Realty Trust
Docket No: 218-201 0-EQ-0065
FINAL ORDER
SUPERIOR COURT
The plaintiff filed this Petition for Injunction on March 3, 2010. Essentially it is an
enforcement action pursuant to RSA 676: 15. In the Petition the plaintiff alleged that the
defendant, through its Trustee and family, were living in a residential home that had not
received a Certificate of Occupancy. The Town claimed that when the defendant obtained
its building permit in May of 2008, a specific condition of construction was the installation
of a sprinkler system in the house. Because that condition was never satisfied, the Town
refused to allow anyone to occupy the structure. Nonetheless, the Town alleged that the
defendant's family moved into the house and continued to reside there despite receiving
several notices to vacate the premises. In addition to requesting an Injunction prohibiting
the defendant from living on the property until a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained,
the Town pursuant to RSA 676:17 sought fines and attorney fees. On March 23, 2010 a
hearing was held on the plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction. After hearing the
Court (Nadeau, J) found that the Town had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits and therefore ordered the defendant's to vacate the premises within thirty days.
On May 13, 2010 the defendant filed an extensive counter claim alleging that it
should be entitled to occupy the premises for the following reasons, to wit, that there is no
law requiring mandatory sprinklers for residential property in the Town of Atkinson; that the
access road constructed by the defendant is more than sufficient to satisfy the safety
concerns of the Town; and that the plaintiff is estopped from requiring sprinklers due to the
conduct and misrepresentation of the Atkinson Fire Chief.
On December 3 and 9, 2010, this Court conducted a Bench Trial in this case. Prior
to taking any evidence on the substantive dispute between the parties, the plaintiff asked
this Court to dismiss this case on the grounds that the defendant had failed to exhaust its
administrative remedies and therefore is now precluded from going forward on any of the
allegations set forth in the defendant's counter claim. The Town argued that the defendant
had two avenues of appeal which were not pursued regarding the Fire Chiefs decision
that the property had to be sprinkled and the ZBA's decision not to permit occupancy
without a sprinkler system being installed.
With respect to the Fire Chiefs decision, the plaintiff claims that an appeal should
have been taken to the State Fire Marshall. The law gives a municipal fire chief the
authority, based upon his or her assessment of safety needs, to make certain conditions
mandatory in residential construction. In this case the Atkinson Fire Chief determined that
because of the steep slope in the access to the defendant's property, fire equipment would
have a difficult time responding to an emergency. Thus he concluded that the installation
of a sprinkler system for safety reasons was a necessity. If the defendant disputed the
Fire Chiefs conclusion with respect to the safety issue, then the law prescribes a right of
appeal to the State Fire Marshall. That individual had the authority to overrule a municipal
fire chiefs determination as to the requirement of the installation of a sprinkler system in a
piece of property. No such appeal was ever taken.

Anonymous said...

With respect to the ZBA's determination that a Certificate of Occupancy was not
going to be issued without a sprinkler system being installed, RSA 677:2, 3, and 4 sets
forth the steps that have to be taken concerning an appeal of an adverse decision of that
body. A Motion for Reconsideration should be filed and thereafter an appeal to the
Superior Court must be taken within thirty days. The defendant did not proceed under
either avenue in this case.
The defendant offers two reasons as to why it failed to appeal either the
determination regarding safety by the Atkinson Fire Chief or the failure of the ZBA to grant
a Certificate of Occupancy. First, it concluded that the adverse decision of the Fire Chief
was reviewable on a certiorari standard through the Superior Court. As far as a possible
appeal to the ZBA is concerned, the defendant argues that the original decision of the Fire
Chief mandating a sprinkler system be installed is a condition that was subject to
modification. In this case the defendant claims that that modification occurred. It argues
therefore that the extent to which the Fire Chief modified his original position on the
necessity of sprinklers is not an appealable decision to the ZBA.
The defendant testified that it was unaware of its right to appeal either the Fire
Chiefs decision or the ZBA decision. Generally ignorance of the law is not an excuse for
the failure to follow it. In this case the knowledge of the defendant as to ZBA appeals is
greater than members of the general public. Margaret Osborn, the wife of the trustee of
the defendant, was a member of the Town of Atkinson Zoning Board of Adjustment for a
two year period during the time which that body considered her request to build a
residential home on the property. While she obviously recused herself from any decision
making concerning that property, her membership of the ZBA would have caused her to
become much more aware of the obligations of property owners to appeal any adverse
decisions of the Board. Notwithstanding this circumstance however, the Court prefers to
resolve this dispute on the basis of the substantive allegations made not on the basis of a
possible procedural deficiency. Thus while the Court finds that the Town's Motion to
Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies has merit, that motion is denied.
The evidence submitted on the Town's underlying claim for a permanent injunction
prohibiting the defendant from living in the property without a Certificate of Occupancy is
largely undisputed. Prior to 2007, the real estate at issue had been a seasonal camp. On
June 13, 2007 the Town of Atkinson Board of Adjustment approved the defendant's
request to convert the seasonal use of the property to year round use. That allowed the
existing camp to be completely demolished and a new structure built on the property. The
approval however was conditional. One of the conditions was that access to the property
must meet the requirements of the police and fire departments for a driveway from a Class
V road.
The following year the defendant sought a building permit. The request was
reviewed by the Fire Chief who authored a written report dated May 19, 2008 requiring
that a sprinkler system be installed as part of the conditions for the granting of a building
permit. The Town Building Inspector adopted that recommendation and made it a
requirement for construction. A building permit was in fact granted to the defendant on
May 23,2008, conditional upon a sprinkler system being installed. There is no question
but that the defendant was aware of that condition because it testified that no such system
would have been made a part of the construction unless it was ordered by the Town. In
fact the defendant sought out a professional company to install such a system and was
given a price for the installation of $5,700.00 in May of 2008.
4

Anonymous said...

Construction of the house proceeded along during the summer of 2008. The plans
called for the installation of a sprinkler system. The defendant's deed contained a right-ofway
over abutting property. For reasons that may have been unrelated to the need to
install a sprinkler system, the defendant made the decision to pave that right-of-way and
use it as primary access to its house. Ostensibly for the purpose of saving money and in
the hope of eliminating sprinklers which the defendant felt did not enhance occupant
safety, Margaret Osborn met with the Atkinson Fire Chief on September 20,2008. This
was at a time when the framing had been completed for the home but the drywall had not
as yet been installed. Thus if a sprinkler system was mandatory it could be put in place as
the next step in the construction without any additional cost.
What was said during this meeting is the core dispute between the parties. It is a
classic he said-she said exchange. No elements of the conversation were reduced to
writing. However the parties do not deny some of the contents of the meeting. They
agree that Mrs. Osborn contacted the Fire Chief so as to explore potential alternatives to
the installation of a sprinkler system. In fact both the use of a cistern and dry hydrant were
discussed but rejected by the Fire Chief. Mrs. Osborn then notified the Fire Chief that she
and her husband were going to improve access to the property by way of a new driveway
to be constructed. The Fire Chief agreed that an appropriate driveway could indeed
eliminate the need for a sprinkler system. Since the requirement of that system was due
to the existing poor access to the property, the Fire Chief conceded that if the proposed
new access made it easier for fire equipment to reach the defendant's house then the
existing access, the need for a sprinkler system would be eliminated.
It is what was said next by the parties that is disputed. The Fire Chief testified that
he was open to examining and if acceptable approving any plans produced by the
5

Anonymous said...

defendant that would detail the length and grade of the proposed new access. On the
contrary, Mrs. Osborn testified that the Fire Chief agreed that her decision to install a new
access would be sufficient to remove the sprinkler system requirement; he did not need
any details about the new access. Given her understanding of the meeting, Mrs. Osborn
notified the sprinkling system installer that its services would no longer be required. She
allowed the construction to proceed to completion without a sprinkler system.
In support of her version of what took place at the September 20,2008 meeting,
Mrs. Osborn testified that the Fire Chief never discussed specific grades, and presumably
he would have if the percentage of slope was a key consideration in his decision making
process. The Fire Chief admitted that no specific numbers regarding grading was
discussed, however he saw no need to review what grade would be acceptable with Mrs.
Osborn since he required her to produce plans for the proposed driveway which would in
fact contain grades. The Fire Chief then would have the option of reviewing those plans to
determine whether or not they met his approval. While in fact the defendant did produce
four plans over the next couple of months reflecting different grades of the driveway, Mrs.
Osborn testified that these were produced as a courtesy to the Chief as opposed to being
plans that had to be approved before the removal of the sprinkler system requirement
occurred.
Upon consideration of all the evidence presented on this issue, the Court finds that
the Fire Chief's testimony of what took place at the September 20, 2008 meeting is
accurate. In the first instance, Mrs. Osborn's version of the meeting does not comply with
common sense. Since the requirement for a sprinkler system was based on safety
concerns in the form of reasonable access to the defendant's property, it would not be
rational for the Fire Chief to remove the sprinkler system condition unless he knew exactly
6
what the finished product regarding the proposed driveway would look like. If the issue
was as open ended as Mrs. Osborn testified, then conceivably the defendant could have
constructed a driveway with a 50% grade which would make access impossible for fire
equipment. Mrs. Osborn wants the Court to believe that the Fire Chief told her that any
configuration of the new access was acceptable.
Margaret Osborn's conduct after the September 20, 2008 meeting also suggests
that she was well aware of her obligation to satisfy the Fire Chief that the proposed
alternate access would be acceptable to him. Shortly after the meeting with the Fire Chief
in September, the defendant retained James Lavelle, a licensed land surveyo~ to prepare
a proposed driveway plan. That plan was drawn on October 21,2008, approximately one
month after the meeting with the Fire Chief, and submitted to the Town. The proposed
grade was 23%. When given to the Town it immediately wrote "not acceptable" on the
plan.
If the defendant believed that the percent of the grade was not an issue, then one
would expect it to immediately remind the Town of the September 20th meeting and result
that the waiver of the sprinkler system was still enforceable. Instead, the sole response by
the defendant to the unacceptability of the first plan was to have the land surveyor prepare
other plans, all of which were rejected. Ultimately the driveway was installed without
approval of the Fire Chief and the final grade was 13.7%.
Note that in subsequent meetings between the Fire Chief and Mrs. Osborn, the
Chief did concede that while he had informed her the required grade was 8% he would
allow a 10% grade. The defendant knew this before it authorized the land surveyor to "do
the best that he could" to meet the Town's requirement. It turns out that the best that he
could do was a 13.7% grade which was not acceptable to the Town.
7

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the best objective evidence submitted by the plaintiff of the true
understanding of Mrs. Osborn as a result of the September 20,2008 meeting is a letter
from her to the Fire Chief dated November 10, 2008. The letter is short and very
instructive, it reads as follows:
"I would like to ask for a change in the building permit for our property on 8 Valcat
Lane in Atkinson. We are seeking permission to build a right-of-way from Chase
Island Road to Valcat Lane in place of putting sprinklers in the house. Our property
at 8 Valcat has a deeded right-of-way not yet constructed that once built would end
at the bottom of our current driveway. We would put together a site plan for your
perusal and approval."
The Court suggests that if in fact the Fire Chief had given a blank authorization to
the defendant to put in any type of new access road in lieu of having to install a sprinkler
system then Mrs. Osborn's letter to the Town would have been along the following lines:
"As per our agreement with the Fire Chief, please be advised that we are installing
a new driveway in order to avoid having to put a sprinkler system in our house. The
Fire Chief did not give me any instructions as to how this driveway should look
however as a courtesy we are enclosing a plan that sets forth the particulars of the
new driveway. We expect the plan to be approved immediately and without
discussion since it comports with our agreement with the Fire Chief. II
The content of Mrs. Osborn's letter is strikingly different than one would expect
coming from someone who really believed that the sprinkler system requirement had been
waived. It confirms what the Fire Chief said about the conversation, to wit, that he would
entertain any plan submitted by the defendant to see whether or not the grade of the
driveway was appropriate having in mind his safety concerns. Admittedly Mrs. Osborn
was under some pressure when the September 20th meeting occurred, given the fact that
construction had reached the point where the sprinkler system would have to be put in
before said construction could continue. She had to make a decision in a relatively short
period of time. Thus when the Fire Chief indicated there was a possible alternative to a
sprinkler system if an appropriate driveway was constructed, she took that to mean the
8

Anonymous said...

requirement was waived when a new driveway was built no matter what its configuration.
In other words she heard what she wanted to hear; she "heard" the portions of the
conversation concerning a possible alternative to a sprinkler system but did not "hear" that
the waiver would have to be based upon an approved plan.
In summary, the Court finds and rules that a condition of building the defendant's
home was the installation of a sprinkler system. This condition was made known to the
defendant before any construction began and was never waived either orally or in writing.
While an alternative was possible, that alternative had to have been approved by the Fire
Chief and Town of Atkinson and it never was. Consequently the defendant cannot reside
on the premises without a Certificate of Occupancy, and one will not be issued unless a
sprinkler system is installed.
The defendant argues that requiring it to put in a sprinkler system after construction
has been completed works as a hardship: Whereas the cost of the system would have
been minimal had it been installed during construction, that cost is now exorbitant. What
the defendant must understand is that while a hardship may now exist, that hardship was
solely created by the defendant. Consequently it must bear all consequences of the
hardship.
The defendant argues that the Fire Chiefs decision with respect to limiting the
grade to 10% was plainly wrong. It points to other means of access for other homes in the
area which it alleges has a grade far greater than the new driveway's grade of 13.7%. It
also quarrels with his insistence on a road standard grade applicable to a Class V road.
Finally the defendant argues that the new law, Chapter 282, Laws of 2010 holds that it is
inappropriate to enforce a requirement for residential sprinklers. The Court finds no merit
in these arguments. It is the defendant that bears the burden of proving that the Fire
9

Anonymous said...

Chiefs decision was unreasonable. Having taken a view of the premises, the Court finds
that the defendant cannot meet its burden of proof. There is a legitimate reason why the
Fire Chief is concerned about a driveway that has a grade in excess of 10%.
In addition to injunctive relief which has now been ordered by the Court, the plaintiff
asks for civil penalties pursuant to RSA 676:17 in the sum of $275.00 for the first offense
and $550.00 for each subsequent offense for each day that the defendant resided on the
property without the benefit of a Certificate of Occupancy. There is no dispute as to this
time period. Mrs. Osborn testified that her and her family moved into the home on
November 30,2009 and vacated it on July 10, 2010, a period of 223 days. Applying the
formula as set forth in the statute, the Court Orders the defendant to pay a civil penalty of
$122,375.00. The law also mandates a reimbursement of attorney's fees. On this issue
the Court orders counsel for the plaintiff to submit a statement of attorney fees within thirty
days which the Court will review and make part of a subsequent ruling.

Anonymous said...

What makes this case particularly egregious is the fact that the defendant took no
responsibility for its actions. It initially claimed that the alleged unreasonable stand taken
by the Fire Chief with respect to the sprinkler system issue was due to "political pressure".
It is not difficult to understand why some citizens and Town officials have become upset
with the defendant's conduct given the fact that it was so blatant. Mrs. Osborn testified
. that she knew moving her family in the house without a Certificate of Occupancy was
against the law but claimed that she was "forced to" because the Town refused to accept
the driveway in its existing condition as an alternative to the installation of a sprinkler
system. Even if the Court accepted Mrs. Osborn's version of what took place at the
September 20,2008 meeting, which it does not, it is clear she knew by the Town's
rejection of her plans submitted one month later that it was not going to waive its condition
10
requiring the installation of a sprinkler system. While no doubt some work was done on
the property in that month's time, it was a long way from being finished. Therefore a
reasonable person in the position of the defendant would have reconsidered its decision to
eliminate the sprinkler system and simply install it, even if it involved some additional cost.
Again, Mrs. Osborn's refusal to see the obvious roadblock is indicative of her mindset to
construct the house without a sprinkler system no matter what the consequences.
In addition to the Town pointing out the fact that Margaret Osborn was a member of
the Town of Atkinson ZBA at the time the home was being constructed and thus should
have known better than to ignore the law, the plaintiff also made the Court aware that
another condition that was part of the granting of the Building Permit was never satisfied
by the defendant. Specifically, when the variance was granted for the conversion of the
property, a condition of that variance was the removal of all sheds, boathouses or
bunkhouses. That condition was made known to the defendant in June of 2007. It is now
December of 201 0 and the bunkhouse that was on the property at the time the variance
was granted is still there. Note that the plaintiff did not make reference to this condition
when it filed its Petition for Injunction. The Court therefore makes no order with respect to it
at this time, however the Town argues that the fact that this condition has never been
complied with suggest that the defendant has never taken its obligation to satisfy all
conditions of the variance seriously.
Both parties have filed a series of Request for Findings of Fact and Rulings of Law.
With respect to the plaintiff's Requests, all are GRANTED with the exception of Requests
9 which is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART and Request 27 which is
NEITHER GRANTED NOR DENIED. With respect to the defendant's Request for
Findings of Fact, the following Requests are GRANTED, to wit, 1,3,4,5,6,7,8,9, 11,12,
11
14, 17, 19,20,21, 22, 26, 27, 30, 32, 39,42, and 43. Request 2 is GRANTED, however
the Atkinson Fire Department building information sheet dated four days before requires
the house to be sprinkled. Requests 18, 23, 24, 29, 37, 38,41, and 44 are DENIED.
Request 36 is DENIED in that the directive from the Fire Chief requiring sprinklers was
reinforced in November of 2008 but initially was made part of the variance and building
permit applications. Requests 10, 13, 15, 16,25,28, 31, 33, 34, 35, and 40 are NEITHER
GRANTED NOR DENIED as there was insufficient evidence presented to enable the
Court to rule on them. Regarding the defendant's Request for Ruling of Law, the Court
GRANTS A, B, E, F, G, I, J, K, M, and N. It GRANTS Requests C, D, and H as correct
statements of the law, but not applicable to this case. It DENIES Request L.
So Ordered.
DATED: ~A"cn... I" ~o/O ; ~ 2M \ 1\fu..1~ Kenneth'R. McHU
Presiding Justice
12

Anonymous said...

Just wondering if Chief Murphy's kid had the proper bulding permit and occupancy permit when he was doing all the work on his house across from Mr Bennet.

Word on the street is he didn't. HMMMMMMMMM

Anonymous said...

Again, and again, and yet again you miss the point. I'm not criticizing the JUDGE, I'm criticizing YOU.

I'm not criticizing the SELECTMEN, I'm criticizing YOU.

So the town won and now the Osborns pay a fine and are being forced to put a sprinkler system in a house next to a lake. All that stuff is now history. What isn't history is the 2-3 blog trolls who continue to attack this family like a pack of bloodthirsty dogs. That is despicable behavior and you're proving to the rest of the town that you're pretty nasty people. I don't agree with a lot of Mark Acciard's views, but at least that guy eased off on the Osborns for Christmas.

What is the next clever response? DAH??? SMACK HER DOWN??? You're showing yourself to be even more CLASSY than I thought. You should call your friend Leon to have him offer some amazing insight.

Okay, I'm so very done with you. Back to writing to yourselves in a vacuum. Have a nice Christmas.

MAcciard said...

Merry Christmas, my fellow Atkinsonians, I am afraid I must agree with a few of the previous commentators.

Stick to the Ideas, and Issues, leave the personal crap out of it!

If you want to criticize Maggie for her conduct at town meetings on this issue, for lying to the town repeatedly, for the audacity of building a driveway across a neighbor's land, content in the thought that the town would never make her tear it down, Fine! have at it.

But that is no reason to defame the family, or to even mention their kids. You could also exhibit a little grace in her loss, by acknowledging the season. Yes, I DO know that the town now has a responsibility with regards to that house, and I DO know that, God forbid, if anything happened up there and the town could not provide fire protection, and lives were lost due to the town's inaction their would at least be some culpability, all good arguments, But perhaps 3 days before Christmas, you could exhibit some compassion as well.

Just one man's thoughts on the matter.
Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!

Anonymous said...

December 20, 2010 5:56 PM - Look up the word "paragraph" and try applying the technique to your posts. Lack of such use displays an ignorance of the basic English skills taught to children in early school years and perfected in high school.

Regarding the sprinkler system: According to the court record the Osborn's received a quote of $5,700.00 to install such a system and had an excellent opportunity to install such a system while the house was being framed. $5,700: Chump change when you are building an expensive home and you know it is a requirement. Really chump change when you now consider all the expense the Osborn's put into resisting it. The driveway, lawyers fees, fines, more lawyers fees. I have to ask myself, WHY go to all this trouble to save $5,700??? What the hell were they thinking?

Regarding the Osborn's selling the property to pay the expenses: Let us know how that works out. The law requires any potential buyer be informed of any serious issues with the home. I would consider a lack of a Certificate of Occupancy a rather serious one. In fact, as is, it is impossible to sell that house if it is intended to be a residence.

Again, my hat off to Tim Dziechowski for setting the record straight and his comments regarding the BOS. Right on.

This post is not about liking or disliking the Osborn's. Don't know them and would not recognize them if I saw them. What I've observed throughout this whole fiasco is a problem that has become a major issue in this county, a sense of entitlement. I see people who thought they could get away with something because of who they knew. When that didn't work, they blatantly lied, both at BOS meetings and in front of a judge. What's worse, the lies were so easy to counter. If you're going to lie at least try and make them plausible.

I really don't care what time of year it is. I believe it is the Sheriff's Department who is responsible for serving and enforcing eviction notices(not the BOS or the PD as so many seem to believe). If the Osborn's were evicted today, I'm good with that. As someone said earlier, they made their bed, time to lay in it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous blogger December 22, 2010 1:50 PM:

I'm not sure if you've looked around but this is 2010. Blogs, texting and email butchered the english language years ago. The fact that you're bringing it up seems shrill and a tad defensive. Of course we should all use proper grammar, but then again we should also be using our manners as well. I notice you didn't point out the lack of civility in this blog from the first post (would that be yours?) to the last.

Anonymous said...

12/20 @ 1:50 P.M., I may not paragraph as you say ,however, it did get my message across did it not? You alone answered thus far. What makes you so superior to me? Is it your education ? Is it your superior attitude over all those who express their opinions here? Are you the one who is doing the devils work? Are you the one who wrote the blog critical of the 5 or so writings to ignore on 12/21 2:25 p.m.?? Your being so superior to all of us who wrote here makes me ask why you just do not understand that I have as much right to express opinions as you do even if ,as you claim , are superior to me. Your better than all others attitude and your assessment of my writing talents are well known now that you have shown your superior thoughts toward me ,etc. and to all who write here. Get a life and if do not like what is written here by anybody just shut up and stay off the site as we all have the same rights opinion . By the way ,do you go to a house of worship or are you one of the hypo's who just claim to be a good neighbor all week long except for the day you worship? So long for now as I and others here on the site are looking for your response .

Anonymous said...

Good Points. The selectmen have to file the complaint with the Sheriff's dept. before they can evict. Are the selectmen going to do this after Xmas, or are they going to do it at all. Taxpayers need to watch.

If they do it before xmas, I'm fine with that too. It should have been done on July 10th. What's the hold up selectmen?

mo

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mark Acciard. While I don't agree with you on all counts you are gaining more respect with every post. Alas, your pleas won't work here. Tough to reign in the nastiness when everyone is anonymous. It does show human nature though. Merry Christmas to you as well.

Anonymous said...

hehehe

"Are you the one who is doing the devils work? "

dead give-a-way

MAcciard said...

I, for one, have always believed that everyone should either use their own name, or pick a pseudonym to post under, at least that way you can separate the posts.

Anonymous said...

2:46 PM and 2:46 PM

I was not commenting on the content of 5:56 PM's or their following posts so get that "I'm so superior" crap out of your head. This was actually my first post on this whole subject. Why so defensive?

Devil's work was a nice touch though. Caught me. The devil made me do it.

My intention was actually to help you. Long entries like yours with no logical separations (paragraphs) are difficult to read, same as someone who types in all CAPS. Imagine reading a newspaper or book that is one continuous stream of words.It's annoying.

No, I'm not the grammar police. They left long ago. My point is, if you want to make your point more clearly make an attempt to make your writing clearer.

Now, I will go off and do my superior devil's work.

Anonymous said...

Hold up there, I have a problem with you just saying okay, Osbornes pay up put the sprinkler system in and get the C/O, and move in. No way. Are you forgetting that she built a home bigger than permitted?
If the Town thinks that the neighborhood is just going sweep it under the carpet they can forget it. Osborns have more problems after the Davis suit is settled.
If the Town can guarantee, that the guy up the street from Osborns can keep his addition, and not have to tear it down, because its not permitted,(Town took him to court and fined him, result is to tear down) and all the residents of Atkinson can now build or do what ever they want to their homes without a permit. We all know that is not going to happen.
If the Town does not act on that issue after all this is said and done, then what message do they send to Atkinson Residents. Yes it's Christmas, sorry but this has been going on for over 2 years. We cannot leave sleeping dogs lie down. Someone at the Town knew all well what was going on, and someone is going to fall,(maybe he should resign before that happens) and the paperwork proves it. You will see.

Anonymous said...

Wow.... we've entered a entirely new arena of crazy, haven't we? Devils work? I guess you just confirmed what I wrote about you trying to "demonize" the Osborns.

To answer your question, I don't think I'm superior to you and I welcome your opinion - at least until you start portraying decent people as evil demons. Then, well, then it gets to be a bit much.

Mark, I'd LOVE to post my name, but why get dragged into the mud with slander, innuendo and apparently a religious war? So if you'd prefer a pseudonym here you go:

foto

Anonymous said...

I would love to see Leon now run for Selectman's office. We could then see all the support {or lack thereof} that Leon has generated from this wonderful blog.

How about it Leon?
I'm not sure if you're still involved with lawsuits against the town or if you are in a position to now run?

How about Mr Brownfield, are you ready to make a run?

I'd like to see all your blog friends line up and be counted at the voting booth.

What say you?

Anonymous said...

12/22@6:13 If read correctly you would see that I were directing my comments at those who deserve them. I haven't written badly of those with the best of intentions at this time of the season. What I've tried to address are those ignorant types that practice their holy than thou ways only on the day they walk into their respective edifices. I'm not picking on you but I am picking on them ,thus the devils commentary was made. Merry Christmas ,and a Happy New Year and for those who aren't christian Happy Holidays.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 22, 2010 2:50 PM

What parts of Mr. Acciard's posts that you don't agree with? Normally, he's right on point.

Anonymous said...

"portraying decent people as evil demons"

They have portrayed themselves as evil demons with their dishonesty. Why do you continue to try to portray them as decent? This is a serious question. That anyone could defend such behavior is stunningly naive.

Anonymous said...

To December 22, 2010 6:32 PM

As long as it's not Sapia or Polito, I'll be happy. Both got the town in lawsuits and now it looks like there will be another with the Town and Polito because of the Osborn issue. That's probably why Polito was in the non-public session where the BOS were discussing paying for the legal fees of town officials. Not that he is one, but he was when this stuff went down. I don't think the town should defend anyone, including officials when they act dishonestly.

Sapia quit after he lied to the ethics committee when asked if he was party to a lawsuit (he said he wasn't, but he was and still is).

We need some new blood and honest people who have no political ties, owe no one, and do not do business in town.

Now is the chance the get rid of the rest of those who have been pulling the town down and causing all the turmoil and selective treatment of residents.

IMHO

Anonymous said...

The Osborn "Reign of Terror" started in the year 2000. They have ruined Christmas for many families for years, without batting an eye. Their deceit, dishonesty, and lies have no boundaries in order to get what they want. Now that payback has struck, they and their so called friends are complaining that the Osborns are being demonized? What hypocrites they are. Personally, “Payback is a BITCH” and Maggie should shut up, stop complaining, and take any well deserved criticism people have to say about her.

Those of us that you started hurting in the beginning Maggie, will never forget or forgive what you did to us. Looks like those that came after us, feel the same way. Hope you have as good a Christmas as you have given us in the past. You deserve it.

Anonymous said...

To 12/23 8:33 AM (or anyone else)

Please elaborate on Polito's role in the Osborn situation, and what you allege he did that exposes the town to legal action.

Who would bring the action against the town, and why, and for what damages?

For months I've seen these vague suggestions of wrong-doing in the Osborn case by Polito, ZBA, BOS, Fire Dept, Inspectors, you name it. But I've read no specific charges... just your basic blog-style muckraking.

To my eye, the ZBA issued a reasonable variance and then the BOS followed due process when the homeowner failed to comply with its provisions. I think the recent ruling supports that view.

So tell us... where was the failing of public officials in the Osborn case? And please do not cite the Osborn-Davis dispute... that's a private matter between private parties where the town has no standing and should take no sides.

Anonymous said...

How many times do you expect this question to be answered?

Polito removed the requirement for the Osborn's to have to prove land rights. He was a town official.

Now look at what has happened.

Anonymous said...

What about the building inspector signing off on a house that was three times the size allowed for the lot that they did not own? Again, town official.

Anonymous said...

The PD (town offical) arresting 2 people merely on the Osborn's say-so.

You know, the he-said she-said scenarios, but no real proof of anything.

Anonymous said...

The BOS stand by and accummulate liability, take no action, and allow this stuff to continue for years and years and years and more years. Decades actually. Town officials ALLOWING the town to operate this way.

Anonymous said...

All this outside of the Osborn-Davis suit.

Davis was not at the ZBA meetings, she was not invited.

Davis did not have Leon arrested ON HER LAND. Osborn did.

Davis had nothing to do with Dubrov being arrested either, nor was she involved in the inspection of the Osborn property.

All these things were the actions of TOWN OFFICIALS.

Get it?

Anonymous said...

to 10:02
The ZBA never issued a requirement for a driveway, only that AFD be satisfied of adequate fire protection. So land ownership of any sort was never an issue where the ZBA had jurisdiction to make any ruling. Polito was correct not to presuppose HOW the applicants would comply; they could have sprinklered. Why do you hold Polito responsible for the actions of the Osborns?

To 10:03
This may have been sloppy work by the ZBA. I do not know what is in the official record, but does 1400 square feet refer to total finished living space, or total POTENTIAL living space, or footprint? We all know what we think it means, but the Osborns may have taken an interpretation most favorable to them. I know I would if the official record was ambiguous.

To 10:05
I was not there but is it possible the police acted simply to diffuse a heated situation that could have gotten uglier? Or are you saying the officers responding to the call were in-the-tank for the Osborns all along? I find that a stretch.

To 10:07
More generalities, no firm charges. The BOS "stands by and allows stuff to happen" ?!? What, EXACTLY, should they have done, and when? Remember, town official are often accused of acting outside their jurisdiction, so be be careful with your answer.

To 10:09
Davis's being noticed of the ZBA meeting is not the ZBA's responsibility, it is the responsibility of the applicant (Malborn). I think the Davis's had legal recourse for this failure to be noticed, but they did not (to my knowledge) pursue that relief.

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 23, 2010 11:29 AM

You sound like you are taking the same type of stand that the town wants us to believe. Those excuses don't hold water anymore and townspeople want that to change.

Town authorities COULD change their normal way of doing business, but if they don't then they can read the charges against them when suit if filed. The ball is in the selectmen's hands.

IF the ONLY WAY taxpayers can get RESULTS is through LAWSUITS that the TOWN causes, then so be it.

Forewarned is forewarned, please don’t ask again.

Anonymous said...

I do not yet feel forewarned because my questions have not been answered.

They are simple and direct... sued by whom, for what cause-of-action and what damages?

Anonymous said...

Town can read the suit when they get it. We're sure all the details they need to know will be in it.

Anonymous said...

If there is another lawsuit against the town, why would someone want to post it and give it away. Surprise!! We will all see it if it ever happens. Nobody is going to give information so that the select people can start covering for themselves. Information is probably already in hand, just like everything else it takes time.

Anonymous said...

hey, I have an idea. You all who are so good at suing the town, how about you fill us in on the current status of your previous suits. It's been almost 2 years, and we don't hear what's been going on. Any results? C'mon Leon, Gary, Steve, Mark, tell us how it's going!

Anonymous said...

I love the "just wait... you'll see when the time comes" replies. Seems we've been hearing this for months now. Sounds to me like someone who does not have answers to simple, direct questions.

Sued by whom?
For what cause-of-action?
For what damages?

Anonymous said...

Anyone notice the Town hall was closed early today?
Are these selectmen all right or do they think they are God and can make any rules they want? December 23 must now be a new holiday, if they took a half day today I bet they are closed tomorrow. Mr Paquette if town employees don't work do they still get paid? Hmm there is a savings for you.

Anonymous said...

You need some education in budget law; the budget committee (Paquette, chair) is responsible for budget. Not expenditures and policy. I hope you left a note for the Town Hall employees telling them how sorry you were to miss them, because I am sure you were there to extend your wishes to them for a wonderful Christmas holiday.
mo, (nvh) mctaataagn

Anonymous said...

If the town hall was closed today, perhaps the lawsuit is in their mail? Wouldn't be the first time town officials didn't know what was going on. (or pretended they didn't know)

If it is in their mail, can we be asured they will tell people or will they hide behind "it's a legal matter and can't discuss it".

Town's people are REAL TIRED of that excuse. It would be a public document that they are required to answer by law.


Let's see if they require a RTK request to the court to cough it up. Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

MAcciard said...

Why thank you, 7:02, but I have no problem with people who disagree with me, I enjoy the debate, I believe it IS possible to debate and disagree without being disagreeable. If you believe something anti-thetical to my opinion, offer me information which I don't have and try to sway my opinion. Disagreements do not make us enemies, just people with differing points of view.

Anonymous said...

Well, this blog can certainly thank the Osborns for making it relevant. No story causes as many debates as those involving this family. So why add anything new when you can just keep throwing mud on the family well after the verdict? I walked away two days ago thinking for a moment (naively it seems) that we'd reached a point of intelligent discourse. What was I thinking?? The Osborns fuel the fire on this blog, and there's no way you're going to let this story come to an end. Enter the hate squad, talking about how the Osborns have been destroying lives for years! Imagine that! Who knew the evil that inhabited our fair town! Bring back the devil talk! (wonder why the Osborns have people arrested? Re-read some of those posts and you'll get a flavor for the insanity they're living around).

And who takes the high road? Certainly not the anonymous bloggers who keep kicking the Osborns over and over again. I gave a nod to Mark Acciard the other day because he's attempted to do so. The casual reader of the blog can see the massive divide between those who try to run the town and those who monitor their every action. The Osborns happen to be a vehicle for those who want to attack town officials on the one hand and those who criticize those people for not doing anything themselves. Lucky them. They're the only story that gets any traction in this blog and it's a shame. Spare me the garbage about them bringing it on themselves. That belongs in the courtroom and they've already been assessed that penalty. This always comes back to a very personal attack on them by a few people while the vast majority of people either don't care at all or offer support to them. Think everyone on the lake hates them? Most people on the lake and certainly in town view this as a curiosity at best. To generalize further only points to your own, rather limited view of reality.

FOTO

Anonymous said...

“When you hold resentment toward another, you are bound to that person or condition by an emotional link that is stronger than steel. Forgiveness is the only way to dissolve that link and get free.”

- Catherine Porter

Anonymous said...

12/24 @10:24 , I too praise and welcome Macciard's thoughts and comments that are well done in every address he has made. It shows he walks the walk and thinks before he speaks. He of all others who blog here has the talent and brains to be and is a leader. Why wont and can't he run for selectman is beyond me ! I can see why ,in a way, after all the threatening actions by the screw balls who have done the sneaky things to him and his property. I would hope that he would run if only to quell the storms of the suits in town politics once and for all. Yes, I'm the one who has written about the hypocrits in town and on certain day[s] they observe their day of worship. Thank you Mac for your input regarding to the towns upheavals and the out look you have. That is more than I can say for the gutless hypocrits who bash every one and make the town the laughing stock of New Hampshire.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1039Anon, if you are heading over to Mark Acciard's house to discuss is upcoming campaign be careful of those Derry cops, there are a #$&#load of them working tonite.

Anonymous said...

I do not agree with prevailing sentiment here that town officials are all corrupt, incompetent or both (Chief excepted... he is demonstrably the latter and may be the former).

I've repeatedly expressed support for town officials in the Osborn matter. And I've disagreed with Mark in several (civil) exchanges.

But I would vote for Mark for Selectman in a heartbeat. While I do not always agree with him, it is clear he would bring transparency, thoughtfulness and reason to a body sometimes short on all three.

Anonymous said...

12/24 506pm, I'll meet you there!

MAcciard said...

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I will give you the same reason that I gave Bill Bennett when he asked me to consider running for the Budget Committee again.

I promised my wife that I would not get involved in town politics again, as she said, it has cost my family too much.

After the vandalism to my house and car, She moved to Derry with my kids, THAt was the condition she set upon our relationship, and I agreed.

I offer my opinions, thoughts, and watchfulness, but that is it.

I learned the cost of even questioning our Chief, unfortunately I did so during the reign of the most corrupt board of selectmen in town history, in my humble opinion. The results played out for all to see.

Have a Merry Christmas, and a Very Happy New Year.

Anonymous said...

Sorry to hear that, who would ever think that our little Town of Atkinson is so corrupt, and would do that awful stuff. Anyway whoever did that to you, what goes around comes around. He or they will suffer consequences in some other way. I truly believe that. Stick to your wife's plan, sounds safer. You can do alot for the Town by being a watchman.

Anonymous said...

Taxpayers can't change the corruption of CON-sentino by sitting on the sidelines. Phil and the other corrupt political figures depend on that attitude to keep themselves in office.

It takes a TOWN full of dedicated people to bring down those that want to take our rights away. Everybody needs to pay strict attention to their every movement, political decision they try to make, stop their over spending, and hold them accountable for every bad decision they make. Anything short of that, and we will have more people like the Osborns stealing our property and worse!

CON-sentino doesn't run a police dept., he runs a hit squad that he uses against his political opponents, and runs interference in case the selectmen get into trouble. Until he's gone, it will be business as usual in this town.

With him gone, we may stand a chance to have our town back. The choice is ours.

CON_sentino and Osborns are birds of a feather.

Anonymous said...

I'm so glad I moved out of Atkinson, you people are really mean. Whether they are bad or not you act just like what you are accusing them of being.

Anonymous said...

I agree with the last post. I almost moved to Atkinson and I'm so glad I didn't. Some of the most hateful people live in that town.

Anonymous said...

You would want to live here until the corruption is cleaned up. You made the right decision.

Anonymous said...

You wouldn't want to live here until the corruption is cleaned up. You made the right decision.

Anonymous said...

Hey non-Atkinson residents, every town has a few nasty people. Ours just happen to write in this blog and in the Eagle Tribune for all to see. Most people couldn't care less about this entire lot. Frankly, I wouldn't ever read this garbage if they weren't constantly harassing the Osborns. Since most people marginalize them in the real world, they keep escalating the rhetoric here to make themselves feel more powerful.

Anonymous said...

Yes, non-Atkinson residents, when the Eagle Tribune writes about all the Nasty things the Osborn's do in Atkinson it's the newspaper that is Nasty according to the Osborn's. You just can't believe that newpaper's lieing eyes!!! LOL

Now you know why the Osborn's ARE the LAUGHING STOCK OF ATKINSON.

Anonymous said...

Ahh!!!!! But then its not only the Osborn situation it is the politics and those who have their agendas of wanting control. That is what makes Atkinson the laughing stock of the state and not just the town.

Anonymous said...

AMEN

Now you know why they Osborn's have lost their control in Atkinson.

God Bless Honest People Everywhere.

Anonymous said...

And now to -------I'll let you fill in the rest. Hint : Good politics and law enforcement . Both doing their jobs w/o straying from the neutrality of the laws.

Anonymous said...

In Atkinson? Ya Right! We have a bridge for sale too. Osborn's will take your money.

MAcciard said...

to Dec. 25@ 10:52;

With all due respect you are wrong. Yes the posters here sometime s use rhetoric that goes over the top, yes they can be excessively critical, but usually not without foundation. No mater what goes on here, it is merely discussion; It does not BEGIN to compare to the actions of those criticized here. No one one this blog slanders people on live TV. No one on this blog gives out frivolous tickets, not even having the balls to stop the person, IN PERSON, but mailing the ticket to their home a week or two hence, No one on this blog sues his critics for telling the truth about their actions. No one on this blog ignores a Court Order and has to be found in contempt of court, and even then continues to ignore the court. No one on this blog is scratching threats into the people their criticizing car, or spray paints them on their homes. No one is moving out of town because they feel threatened by the postings on this blog. People have moved out of town because they felt threatened by our chief of police, and his supporters.

No matter how vociferous people on this blog become, they can not hold a candle to the corruption of our own chief of police, and the benign neglect of our successive boards of selectmen.

Anonymous said...

And that's life here, welcome to Atkinson. Thieves like the Osborn's ready to steal your land with CON-sentino's protection. Corruption at the hands of your very own police chief, and the three monkey bobble heads, saying "What would you have US do"? "It's a civil matter, duh"!

Beware of Turf Wars between Consentino Capone v. ANYONE THAT GETS IN HIS WAY. (Unless of course you befriend him by making a VERY LARGE donation to his Police Charity Fund, or Elderly Affairs Dept."

Willing your home or land when you die to him or a town dept. works well too! You have choices in Atkinson. Isn't that comforting?

Anonymous said...

Again MAC you hit the nail right on the head. To bad your wife feels the way she does because you do have more guts than even those who have their agendas in Atkinson . It appears that in your case it is God family and then others. So be it unless the bride relents.

The Other New Guy said...

Mark,

I respectfully disagree with your comment. To portray the things that have been said about the Osborns as "excessively critical" is at best, a severe understatement and at worst, condoning inflammatory, personal attacks. Unfortunately, some people have difficulty "drawing the line" with rhetoric and action and you, who have been on the receiving end of this issue, should know better.

Two wrongs do not make a right!

Anonymous said...

To: The Other New Guy

Defending the Osborn's stealing of another person property, the lies they tell to cover up their actions, shows you condone their actions.

Defending the Osborn's actions is indefensible. They fact you support them, shows you are part of the problem, If you love them so much, move and take them with you. You, Maggie and CON-sentino will be in like company.

The Other New Guy said...

Anon 6:16 PM,

Excuse me? Please provide proof of me condoning the Osborn's actions? Your response, like all of the "CON-sentino" posts are immature and poorly written. Is "just move" really the best solution you offer to an alternative point of view? I suspect a person who writes with such anger were in a position of power in town, you would be the bully. So much misdirected hostility. How sad.

Anonymous said...

You are not excused.

Example: To portray the things that have been said about the Osborn’s as "excessively critical" is at best, a severe understatement and at worst, condoning inflammatory, personal attacks.

There are no comments about the Osborn's that can be overstated. They are all understated, and well deserveed regardless of being inflammatory or personal attracts. To complain about it, shows you support them in some manner.

"MOVE" is what CON-sentino says to all his critics: If it's good enough for him it's good enough to say to you. MOVE, you Osborn supporter............MOVE.

MAcciard said...

2:45;

While you are right, I was not condoning the over the top rhetoric, merely calling it what it is. If you read my previous posts, I also chastised those who do this, exhorting them to limit their comments to the issues, and practices, and do away with the ad hominem attacks.

If you notice I do neither.

I was trying to draw the distinction between these people's comments on a blog, and tow officials slander on live Tv at official town meetings.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone tell us, for sure, whether the Osborns have vacated?

And if not, what enforcement procedures are to be expected, by whom, and in what timeframe?

Please try to withhold the editorializing... I am just looking for current status and likely future actions and timeframes.

Anonymous said...

To 12/27 12:03 and others

Some questions asked before but still un-anxwered...

Please tell us, exactly, what the "three bobble-heads" SHOULD have done in the Davis -v- Osborn situation; and when they should have done it.

Lawsuits against the town??? I'm still waiting...
Sued by whom?
For what cause-of-action?
For what damages?

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 28, 2010 10:06 AM

The Osborn's have never left 8 Valcat even after the court ordered it in June.

It's the Selectmen's job to enforce the eviction, and they have not. They need to contact the Sheriff's dept. and have them escort the Osborn's out and padlock the doors. When will they do it? They haven't done it so far, so your guess is as good as anyone else’s. Could it be they practice selective enforcement against their enemies and not their friends? Most in town believe so.

Anonymous said...

I am not trying to bait an argument here, but is it really that easy?

Don't the Osborns have a right to access the house, for example, to do decorating or even their own (approved) construction work before getting an Occupancy Permit?

What constitutes "living there"... being there at 8 PM, or 11 PM?

Can they be TOTALLY prevented (by padlock) access to a property they own?

It just seems a big ugly mess to me and I am not sure the actions open to the Selectmen are as simple as some have said.

Who would ever want to be a Selectman and deal with this stuff? No wonder nobody new ever runs.

Anonymous said...

The selectmen filed suit against the Osborn's for living there with out the benefit of an occupancy permit. The town won that case along with fines of $550.00 a day that they lived there.

The simplest thing to do is file for a contempt order with the same judge and collet more fines at the same rate, along with an order for the sheriff to take them out in handcuffs. Judge's don't take contempt of court orders lightly.

No one said being a selectmen is an easy job, but if they don't enforce our regulations and court orders, they need to resign. Take it a step further, we don't need zoning regulations that aren't enforced. Choice is to get rid of zoning or selectmen that won't do their job. Chose is ours. What do you want?

MAcciard said...

To be fair, past BOS have made the job harder than it needed to be by simply refusing to do the right thing. Or by selectively enforcing policy.

At least THIS board is attempting to do what is right., Give them a chance to follow through, Court actions do not complete the process overnight.

Anonymous said...

We would like to respectfully disagree with Mr. Acciard. The Selectmen had a court order to evict Mr. & Mrs. Osborn back in June. They did not evict them. This month the court revivified that eviction and the selectmen STILL haven't enforced the order.

What are they waiting for, the Osborn's to die in their illegal house before they drag them out for the lying, stealing SOB'S they are, or a LARGE DONATION to the police dept or elderly affairs to turn a blind eye?

Either way, the order isn’t being enforced. If it were anyone of us that hadn’t donated to one of the town schemes, we would be gone by now. Enforcement of Atkinson regulations is for sale to the highest bidder.

Who is to blame for all this? Well if you were to listen to CON-sentino or the selectmen it’s Mark Acciard’s fault because he has a vendetta against CONMAN and the town. He’s the rabble rouser. To the watchful eye: “That dog doesn’t hunt anymore”!

Wake up Atkinson taxpayers! Watch the ACTIONS of your selectmen, not their words. That’s where the truth lay!

Corruption in Atkinson begins and ends at the feet of CON-sentino and the selectmen. If the selectmen won’t do anything about the CONMAN or Osborn, than they all must go. Until then nothing will change.

mo

Anonymous said...

Watching as an outsider, I've studied the actions of the Town of Atkinson. If you want to know who the real problem child in Atkinson is, just go to:

http://www.atkinsontaxpayers.org/

and see who has caused all the lawsuits. Watch the actions of Consention, Polito, Sullivan and Sapia in the videos posted on this web site too.

There is no doubt in my mind that Consentino is runing your town and has something on every person he uses his Elderly Affairs Dept. and other donation accounts to get people elected.

Believe me, I would never consider buying property in your (UN) fair town as long as that FAT BASTARD were a part time police chief. I went to school with that bully and want nothing to do with him. He is untrustworthy.

Anonymous said...

Maggie and judge McHugh went up the hill, so Maggie could SHOUT him down. McHugh NEVER BLINKED as she threw in the kitchen sink, and then he proceeded to SMACK HER DOWN!

MCHUGH 1. Maggie 0.


NEXT.................

Anonymous said...

Now that the selectmen have won $122,000 plus in fines from the Osborn's, will they collect it or will they wait till they think we are not looking and forgive the debt?

How about it selectmen, what are you going to do. We know you read the blog so post here and let us know how you are going to try to bury this collection.

Believe us, we are watching your every move. You will not get away with not collecting. Not collectiong equals corruption.

Make our day!

Anonymous said...

For those that don't know who our selectmen are, they are Bill Friel, Bill Bennnett, and Fried Childs.

Watch and see who votes to forgive the Osborn debt and you will know who is corrupt.

mo

Anonymous said...

PS Selectmen's meeting is every Monday night. Watch on channel 20 cable. Most likely they will go into a NON-PUBLIC to forgive the debt to cover their ass. They can still be held accountable, so stay tuned for what they do.

Anonymous said...

12/28 @ 2:55
Your comments offer no evidence that the BOS is mis-handling the situation. Clearly you are not happy, but I am wondering if what you want can (right now) be legally acomplished?

Just how does one evict a family not willing to cooperate? I presume you want to see due process followed so everyone's rights are respected.

Haven't the Selectmen followed due process for many months through several legal hearings to press actions against the Osborns? They've been awarded $122K (and counting).

Yet now you accuse the BOS of failing to act? That just doesn't add up. Certainly you don't want our own police going in there and performing an eviction just on the Selectmen's say-so. I'd rather wait for a judge's say-so.

Be patient, as Mark suggested, the wheel of justice grind slowly. But (near as I can tell) our Selectmen HAVE pursued this case as aggressively as they legally could.

Anonymous said...

The Osborn's have been breaking the laws of Atkinson and the State since 2000. The selectmen have known since that time and only recently taken action because of taxpayer pressure.

Selectmen have a budget to retain legal counsel at taxpayer’s expense. They have had plenty of opportunity to seek legal advice as to how to proceed legally and have not done so. Question is why?

It's not the taxpayers responsibility to give selectmen the legal definitions of the law, the selectmen should have known what to do by now. Do they? No! Why? Because they are pretending to be bobble heads while they protect the Osborns.

They should have foreseen every one of your questions, got the answers and evicted them on the first order from the judge. Did they? NO! The judge has reconfirmed his order and the selectmen still haven't had them evicted. Why?

It doesn't matter whether the Osborn's are willing to cooperate or not. There is no reason why the Atkinson police can't go arrest them other than Consentino is a friend of theirs. If Atkinson police won't do it, then why do we bother having a police dept. at all?

After six years of patience, time has run out. Selectmen need to do their job now or explain on camera why they won't act.

How about it selectmen? Want to explain at next Monday's selectmen's meeting without going into a Non-Public? Hmmmmmmm? Enough of your excuses stop your foolishness. A six year old would know what to do.

Anonymous said...

why do you persist in thinking the selectmen take direction from this blog? They don't. Man-up and show up at one of their meetings and express yourself in person. Otherwise you are much like the little man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz.

Anonymous said...

TOOT TOOT..........

Anonymous said...

"why do you persist in thinking the selectmen take direction from this blog? They don't."

You are absolutely correct. I personally know one of said selectmen and I can assure you, this site is not booked-marked on their browsers.

If you feel so passionate about this subject, or any other, go to a BOS meeting or call one on the phone. They will listen to you, really.

This is a nice place to vent but so is a cave. Each have the same amount of effectiveness.

RE: "Certainly you don't want our own police going in there and performing an eviction just on the Selectmens say-so."

Just a reminder, it is the Sheriffs Dept. that handle evictions, not local police. Once they get the go ahead, the Osborn's are out, end of discussion.

Anonymous said...

Really? When are they going to get the go ahead, anytime in our lifetime or the Osborn's?

Anonymous said...

12/28 11:52 PM Said:
"Just a reminder, it is the Sheriffs Dept. that handle evictions, not local police. Once they get the go ahead, the Osborn's are out, end of discussion."

So... can anyone say with absolute certainty that the legal proceedings and rulings thus far empower the BOS to contact the Sheriff's Dept and an eviction can legally occur now?

I am not asking what you THINK; I am asking what you KNOW. My uninformed legal opinion is that the Osborns still have rights of appeal, and can choose to remain though they do so at their own very significant risk that fines continue to mount; and if they exhaust their legal options and the rulings still go against them, they're out very big-time bucks.

It just seems to me that a physical eviction by the Sheriff is an extreme action that can only occur under very specific legal circumstances... and I do not know whether those circumstances exist at this time in this case or not.

For those of you prone to rants, please label your posts as opinion, not fact. I'm looking for legal facts (though looking here is probably a waste).

Anonymous said...

Why would anyone look at an anonymous blog for facts, especially legal facts?

IMHO

Anonymous said...

When is the BOS going to deal with the real problem behind the illegal arrests and why some people are arrested without evidence while other people get away with all sorts of mischief?

Anonymous said...

Listen everyone, Banks do evictions by Sheriff's on forclosures all the time legally. For them it just takes longer because of the amount of forclosures in this economy. The sheriff comes to your door, if you don't answer they can break the door down, or find access another way without too much damage, if you are there they hand you the eviction and give you anywhere from 30-60 min to pack up and move, with the police dept also waiting. Wouldn't that be funny if Constentino has to actually park there and act like he is doing his duty. The town can't get out of this, they started the process,(only to appease), now they have to finish it and collect the fines, and pay us taxpayers back for the savings.
Oh yes, would the BOS have a meeting, and would people who write show up, you bet your ass they would. The town is too afraid of the public humiliation to be on TV and also make the Union Leader again, because the Union Leader is on to them too. They purposely avoid televised meetings or even allow this subject to get out. This time they are being backed into a corner for justice. If they took the job now they must deal with it and put this all behind us.

Anonymous said...

"Really? When are they going to get the go ahead, anytime in our lifetime or the Osborn's?"

Work on your reading comprehension. What about "If you feel so passionate about this subject, or any other, go to a BOS meeting or call one on the phone. They will listen to you, really." did you not understand?

How many times does it need to be said before people understand: The BOS as a whole or individually will not answer your questions here.

Anonymous said...

To 10:34
The foreclosure evictions you reference are very different circumstances... where Party A is occupying a property now deemed to belong to Party B.

Here, we're talking about evicting people from their own house.

The other poster is probably right... looking for facts here is a fool's errand.

MAcciard said...

I think the operative fact is that the Court issued an Order directing the Osborns to vacate the premises at 8 Valcat back in April or May. The Court effectively re- issued that Order this month. That puts the ball in the Osborn's court, the longer they defy the Court's Order, the greater the chance of Contempt proceedings, and penalties.

Anonymous said...

Anon December 29, 2010 10:34 AM

said: "They purposely avoid televised meetings or even allow this subject to get out."

too bad last year a warrant article to stream video of all BOA meetings over the internet failed by 4 votes. Then anyone in town could watch BOS meetings anytime they wanted. current situation helps them hide.

Anonymous said...

When are you going to stop milking this story and post something new in the blog? This is well beyond tedious to read the same garbage recycled over and over again. Can't find a negative story to write about Atkinson? Maybe try to write about something positive for a change. (celebrating the Osborn's situation does not qualify as a positive news story to anyone but you and your three friends).

Anonymous said...

To Anon December 29, 2010 8:27 PM

Sorry Maggie, you are the main story right now. Lots to report on you that hasn't been said yet. Stay tuned.

Anonymous said...

"Work on your reading comprehension."

YOU were the one reading and attempting to comprehend.

I think you meant to say that he work on his writing skills, as should you.

Anonymous said...

Here's a positive story for the holidays.

The Candlelight Christmas Eve service at the Congregational Church was very very nice.

If you have never attended, all are welcome so check it out next year. It'll start your Christmas Day off right.

Anonymous said...

Crooks being exposed for their illegal behavior IS a POSITIVE story! Doesn't happen very often in Atkinson because of the Police Chief we have.

Anonymous said...

Aren't there any libertarians in our town? Yes, the Osborns should make Carol Davis whole again! But I'm not so sure they should pay a fine to the town or pick up the court costs. What's the big deal about breaking Zoning laws and ignoring the Fire Chief? Other prominent Atkinson residents have been thumbing their noses at the town for years. Who cares if Osborn's house is bigger than stated in their plans? You all sound jealous. All it means is they pay more taxes. And isn't that what it all about? And who gives a rats ass if the fire department can't get their over-priced, ill-designed equipment up a hill in an emergency. The Osborns made their bed, let them lie in it. What business is it of ours? Will somebody please cite the RSA that says the FD must respond to a fire at the Osborn's.

Just my humble opinion

Anonymous said...

Ooo, that's a good one. That'll incite at least 20 mindless replies.

Anonymous said...

u guys are all douche bags u can talk about the economy but no u fuckin talk about a lady and her family who has done nothing wrong to u. Just FUCK all u guys get a fuckin life and that fuckin JACK SAPIA is the biggest douche of them all

Anonymous said...

A new low for this blog...did not know it was possible!

Anonymous said...

And then there is the person who complained about an anon. person who doesn't paragraph their remarks hahahahahahahahah!!!! With what was allowed on this site with its terrible language at 12/31 @318A.M. it is a pleasure to see the following comment of a "new low". Where was the administrator? Oh darn!, sleeping is my guess. The wait to read before publishing aspect by the administrator apparently failed. The wait to read and publish switch couldn't have been turned on before his/her zzzz's time. Qh well dodo does happen at that time of morning [3:18 a.m.]when the nuts are still drugging and drinking.

Anonymous said...

To Anon 12/30 7:59 PM:

So now you're frustrated and grasping at straws by picking on the fire dept.

Can you please provide info on why you think that the fire dept equipment is overpriced and ill-designed? Chief Murphy appears to do well with research and budget planning - their equipment is the same as or exceeds the quality of many departments in this area. And, he manages to run the FD without having FULL TIME employees.

I too am a Libertarian. Unfortunately, we live in a litigious society where people sue any and everyone, regardless of fault. If the fire dept was not able to get to a home for an incident, you can guarantee there would be a lawsuit. There is no sense of of personal responsibility anymore.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if there is an RSA for Fire depts responding to residential fires, but the Fire dept has an obligation to, no matter what the circumstances are. If the Fire Chief were reading this, I am sure he could give that RSA code if there was one. When The Chief did not pass the C/O, because Osborns did not sprinkle, there is a State RSA code for all new residential homes built after 2004,(ask any builder) he was allowed by the state Fire Marshall to give another option, so he did. He gave the driveway with the specs, and engineering needed. Osborns didn't comply with that. Even if our Town services are corrupt there has to be a few good ones out there. Both Police, and Fire have to respond for any call to any of the residents. If you don't think so, then become a Police, or Firefighter, and put your own lives at risk. On Osborns home it just means if there were a fire than it would take longer for the fire trucks to reach their destination, according to the State statistics on response time, plus we are a volunteer fire dept, so those statistics rise, compared to statistics on 24 hour manned Fire Stations. Therefore, a fire would burn longer, and create more damage, or even death. Be grateful that there are residents that volunteer to get up, and out of their homes for FREE, to respond to a call to possibly save a life and property. The Chief did his job according to State Statute, Osbornes are the ones that are chosing to live at a high risk of property and casualty of life. None of us can change that, it's their decision to live with that risk. Let's hope that their contractors didn't screw something up that could fail and cause that type of devastation. Their children's lives and theirs depend on that.
I agree, please keep the vulgarity out of this blog.

Anonymous said...

" All it means is they pay more taxes."

Actually, they pay less since they are assessed on the size of the house. Now that it has come out that they have a bigger house than permitted, they will pay more, IF they get the permit. Until they get that permit, they pay only a portion of the tax bill.

It is better that this came out but I wish my shifty neighbors would be exposed next for the expansion of their house without permit. Oh, nevermind, they were town officials so it's unlikely that they will be prosecuted....

Anonymous said...

Happy New Year everyone.

I hope this is the year that the town moves in a better direction.

I hope this is the year that the Chief leaves and the corrupt PD is reigned in.

I hope people will finally be treated fairly and no longer have to give donations to get town services.

Ohterwise, I hope I can sell and move. It's not worth living amongst bullies and thieves.

Anonymous said...

OMFG leave this person alone. U guys clearly have no life. I been living in this god dam city for 35 years and has never seen such hate towards one family shame on you people of Atkinson. We really hit a new low in making this blog. FUCK ALL YOU PEOPLE MAKING HATEFUL REMARKS TOWARDS one family. Maybe if all you guys had jobs and stuff this blog wouldn't be existence.

Anonymous said...

3:12 p.m. , First off this is a town not a city. Second ,you talk of hateful words towards others and yet you use the worst and fowl of language to spew your hate in telling us to stop picking on any one person or family. third , it wouldn't make any difference wether we are employed or not. The reactions to the current events in town may be over the top at times but then what do you expect when the accusations have been so long ongoing. I rather doubt your a resident and I do refer to number one . In any event get lost.

Anonymous said...

6:19 PM 1). ur dumb 2). ur fat 3). u probably never been laid

Anonymous said...

I'm still laughing at the posting where the person kept using the "F" word over & over. He sure is worked up over this blog. I was reading it to my husband & it made us both laugh! I personally don't use that word & it will probably be poofed by tomorrow. Hope the person calms down....everything will work out for the best. Would love to know who the poster is. I too, am a looong time resident, so we probably know each other...

Anonymous said...

Atkinson is like every other place that I've lived in.....it's WHO YOU KNOW!!!

Anonymous said...

To 12/31 11:59 AM

You mention shifty neighbor(s) who you claim added-on without a permit.

Why not expose them here? Or take it to the Selectmen?

If you know of wrongdoing and do nothing about it, you're no better than those you criticize for also doing nothing.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson is like every other place that I've lived in.....it's WHO YOU KNOW!!!

Better still is what corrupt Atkinson official you want to bed with.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ December 29, 2010 1:03 PM

You do realize that the warrant for streaming video was a SELECTMEN's warrant right? You know, the same ones that you say are hiding because we don't have it. They put this warrant out there to increase access to the meetings. Pretty shifty of them huh.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I take a few days off to enjoy reality and look what happened to the one story blog! Descending back into chaos and idiocy.

First, to the moron that continues to call me Maggie every time I defend the Osborns or ask you to write something else after two weeks of the same story, I hope to meet you someday to illustrate just how wrong you are. You continue to escalate this situation so don't be surprised at the people angry with YOU.

Second, could the clinically insane people check out for a while? I'm getting tired of trying to decipher the rants. Look, we know you hate the Osborns and that you wish the world saw things your way but could you go find a pothole to scream about instead? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. That proves we're all crazy for spending any time in this waste hole of a blog.

Third and final point and then I'll go back to the real world: The facts of the case aside (been there, done that), it's clear that the Osborns have real, well-adjusted friends who care about them and defend them against the poison rhetoric written in this blog. It's equally clear that the "Atkinson Reporter" and other haters aren't ever going to move on from this story. So the "Atkinson Reporter" is enabling an escalation in tension in our town that is irresponsible and immoral. So don't preach to me about Sunday service and how "Evil" other people are. Don't talk about right and wrong and good Christian values. Your behavior since the judges decision speaks louder than any words you write here.

foto

Anonymous said...

I disagree. I think that there's a good reason why this blog is filled with anger, people have been ignored for too long and they are venting here.

"Why not expose them here? Or take it to the Selectmen?"

How do you know that I have not taken my concerns to the selectmen and have become a target as a result? They do not seem to like hearing about problems and they did nothing when I confronted them. In fact, one of them called me names though I provided proof. He was just to blind to see the facts.

Unfortunately, the town is going to stay in a negative cycle until they clean up their act. You cannot expect people to just shut up and go away anymore.

Anonymous said...

To 1/2 8:15 AM
I have written critically of the Osborns here; to be more accurate I've criticized their positions, not them personally. But it is not "hate"; it is simply adversarial. They chose to ignore or challenge town regulations; and indirectly they also challenged me. The town (and I) prevailed.

All I want now is final resolution:
1. they pay their assessed fines
2. they leave the house
3. they do whatever needs to be done to the house and property to get an Occupancy Permit (which might be extensive).

You speak of the court decision as though that ends it. The three actions listed above yet to be taken by the Osborns will end it.

Anonymous said...

To 1/2 10:59 AM
You said "How do you know that I have not taken my concerns to the selectmen and have become a target as a result?"

Of course, I don't. But if you disclosed the assertions here perhaps others would take up the cause to get equal enforcement and applicaton of town regulations.

Anonymous said...

Taking anything to the selectmen just gives them time to blow you off and prepare to slander your good name. Best way is to take your case directly to court and take CON-sentino out of the picture.

The court system is your best way to correct the corruption in this town.

Anonymous said...

If your target is the town then write an article about the town. There hasn't been anything written in two weeks other than comments about the Eagle Tribune article. Only writing opinion posts about the Osborns antagonizes people. Perhaps that's what you're after - this will be comment #184 after all. You can justify continuous harassment of the Osborns as being adversarial, and maybe in your case there is no hatred. But one quick glance through the comments here illustrates my point better than your protests ever could. Remember your last post when the kids were attacked? How far are you going to let this go anyway?

The Osborns have been smart enough to maintain a low profile lately (Happy Holidays) and they're the better for it. They have plenty of friends who have stepped in to defend them against the nastiness that's being posted by some of your readers. Some have been overly animated in their defense but outrage comes out on both sides, doesn't it? Suffice it to say that we've got their back and WE won't tolerate the haters anymore.

I'm well aware of the steps they need to take to get their OC. I also know they're working towards resolution as well. The real question is whether you'll let it go after this entire situation is resolved or if you'll have nothing else to write about? Time will tell...

foto

Anonymous said...

Greetings,

Thanks for sharing this link - but unfortunately it seems to be down? Does anybody here at atkinsonreporter2.blogspot.com have a mirror or another source?


Cheers,
Oliver

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 3, 2011 3:43 PM

Protect the Osborn's all you want. Thieves and crooks band together. Eventually, all townspeople will see YOU for what you really are.

Anonymous said...

To Anon January 3, 2011 3:43 PM

While you would like to turn this into a HATE ISSUE be assured that the Osborn's are only being exposed for what they are. They take no responsibility for what they did, and blame anyone they can for their problems.

Remember what the judge said when he stated that the Osborn's are just not believeable. There is a reason for his obervations.

Thank goodness you are not a judgte.

Anonymous said...

To 1/3 3:43
You are questioning how I'll behave after the Osborn situation is reconciled. Yes, time will tell. But I am not in the hateful camp with 6:06 and 7:28.

But nor am I in the mood for forgiveness. The Obsorns have tested the town over compliance matters for many years. So what went around came around; and now they have a steep price to pay for their actions.

I expect the Selectmen to stand firm and collect all awarded damages and fines. The Osborns got here by their own doing, now they should own up to the consequences of their actions.

It is not personal, it is just the town's business.

Anonymous said...

To the idiot that wrote:

Protect the Osborn's all you want. Thieves and crooks band together. Eventually, all townspeople will see YOU for what you really are.

So now you're calling ME a thief and crook?? You've got your head so far up your own backside that all you can smell is trouble. Questioning my character because I stick with decent people who prove over and over again that they're genuine? I'VE never vandalized someone's home, dumped junk cars in the driveway or flipped off my neighbor's kids before - have YOU?? YOUR Co-Vigilantes friends have! Does that make you the crook too?

So spare me your finger pointing and innuendo and crawl back into your hole. Thankfully the majority of people in this town see through this garbage.

Anonymous said...

I'm showing the Selectmen this blog and its going to be banned hahahaha douche bags beware. I already talked to one of the selectmen and he said he would look into shutting this site down. Don't believe me go to the next meeting and your gonna be surprised hahahaha

Anonymous said...

yeah he's right just got back from a lunch break and the big word around town hall is the shutting down of this site. It's no joke i can't believe it i love this blog and its surely going to be missed

Anonymous said...

yeah he's right just got back from a lunch break and the big word around town hall is the shutting down of this site. It's no joke i can't believe it i love this blog and its surely going to be missed

Anonymous said...

Well then maybe someone else can start a blog!! It won't stop us. I guess they don't like freedom of speech.

Anonymous said...

Of course they don't like freedom of speech. It's UN-politician!! They only want us to hear their lies and Osborn’s lies. Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. ASK Sapia and he will tell you how that works. He’s done it enough himself.

We’re hearing around town that a couple other blogs are starting up. That should keep CON-sentino busy for the next ten years. LOL

Anonymous said...

Boy, you people will believe anything...

Anonymous said...

The BOS can't shut this site, or another site down. If they are really saying this and you are really believing them, the site is not your biggest problem.

They'll never shut this down nor will they figure out who is running it. They hate it because it shines a light on what is going on and they like to keep us in the dark.

Anonymous said...

Do you think maybe somebody was pulling your leg?? Good God, you people will find outrage and indignation in the silliest things.

Anonymous said...

Silly?

The BOS has been trying to squash this site for sveral years now.

Didn't 'you people' know this?

Anonymous said...

Okay, let me get the X-Files music going for you to really make this dramatic. You live in the United States, not China, and you aren't going to have your precious blog site shut down

Anonymous said...

Very rude. Can't you just post without the sarcasm?

No one here believes the site will be shut down except the person making that silly posting (you).

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 252   Newer› Newest»