Yard signs mark latest skirmish in dispute over property rights : La Crosse Tribune

Anonymous wrote on Oct 11, 2006 8:53 PM:

" Oh-please. "

(Off Topic) TRIBUNE Polls wrote on Oct 11, 2006 1:38 PM:

" Why even have them tribune Polls in the second page of the Tribune if you dont print out the Result's everyday for the Previous day's poll, not "EVERYBODY" is donald trump to where we can just hop on a Computer at the end of the day to read the final outcome, so why even have your daily poll if you wont show the previous day's result's?!? "

some dude wrote on Oct 11, 2006 11:52 AM:

" A visual would be extremely helpful for this situation. "

Jury of Peers wrote on Oct 11, 2006 7:54 AM:

" Additionally, it seems even more strange that the sole person to determine the ruling in this case, also ruled that the Olson's couldn't put up signs in their yard. I don't make the connection?! "

Mr. Sol wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:07 AM:

" The disputed parcel which is the subject of the lawsuit was created in 2000 - Check the county records. Neat trick for Judge Damon to have ruled the Thorns and previous owners of the Thorn lot had possessed it for 20 years by 2000. The Olsons owned all of the land surrounding the Thorn's lot until that time. They sold 2 lots to "new" people and per assurances from the Thorns that they wanted to correct encroachments, surveyed out the .18 acres for sale to them. Once the parcel was landlocked the Thorns balked. This was the Olson's mistake. "

Where's the Jury of Peers wrote on Oct 11, 2006 5:04 AM:

" How come this decision was made by a judge rather than a jury? I find that very odd... "

re: To: The Issues wrote on Oct 10, 2006 8:06 PM:

" So enlighten us. What is it that the Olson's did wrong? It seems that they did not comply with the original court order to remove the fence and no trespassing signs. You said: It's called interferrance with contract. It's as if you were trying to sell your house and the neighbors put up signs falsely claiming your basement leaks. You can get a Court Order stopping the harassment." Are the Olson's lying to prospective purchasers? The Thorn's should be disclosing the info to any potential buyers anyway. From what I've read three potential buyers contacted the Olson's. If I was a potential buyer knowing that this case is going to be appealed, I'd have to shy away to. It seems the Thorns set themselves up for this. "

re: Here's the problem wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:11 PM:

" Yes, the problem is the parcel no longer belongs to the Olson's and isn't even adjacent to their property anymore, yet the Thorn's took it to the court to have the Olson's remove the fence and the no trespassing signs from the parcel (along with the protest signs in the Olson's and others' yards, which the court rejected). "

ahhem wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:02 PM:

" The case is up for appeal. It ain't over 'til it's over. "

Mac wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:41 PM:

" The Thorns did not own the land for 20 years, but the law takes into account how current and PAST owners used the land, hence the judge's ruling that the land had been used that way since the original survey in 1980 and that the Thorn's actually owned it back to 2000. The real kicker is that the previous owner testified in court that he knew where the property line was and abided by it when he was living there. The Thorn's did not know where the actual property line was and extended a septic system past it and built an addition to their house that was too close to the property line, which caused problems with the sale of their home. The Thorn's told the county that they thought these things were checked by the contractors and the permitting process and basically claimed ignorance. "

To: The Issues wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:24 PM:

" If you're having difficulty understanding what the Olson's did wrong, buy a copy of the trial transcript. As to the signs, the Olson's continue to appempt to stop people from buying their neighbors property. It's called interferrance with contract. It's as if you were trying to sell your house and the neighbors put up signs falsely claiming your basement leaks. You can get a Court Order stopping the harassment. "

re: I am confused and need help wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:22 PM:

" The land is not contiguous to the Olson's farm anymore. They surveyed in 2000 to sell two parcels of land. At that time they talked to the Thorns about how much land was needed to solve the Thorns' problems with the septic system and a county variance for an addition that was built too close to the property line. They set aside a .18 acre parcel for the Thorns to buy for the grand total of $1400. About $1000 for the land plus survey costs. "

Here's the problem wrote on Oct 10, 2006 5:43 PM:

" The land in question is no longer the Olson's. "

words.... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 5:16 PM:

" Liar, Lawyer, mirror tell me, what's the difference???? "

The Issues wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:43 PM:

" Was there anything on the Olson's signs remotely related to the purchase or sale of the Thorn property? Let's say the trial was heard fairly and decided justly, with the Thorns taking possession of the disputed parcel, and the $27,000 in damages. Do the Olsons and their neighbors have a right to place signs in their yards in an attempt to change the law the caused such a set of circumstances? Do they also lose the right to protest the justness of the courts and the validity of their decisions because they lost at trial? I think even Solomon and Chico would have a hard time answering this question yes. I'm having difficulty seeing what the Olsons did wrong other than being far too neighborly and trusting. "

Here are some facts: wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:26 PM:

" To Get the facts A. The Olsons were assessed damages for interfering with the sale of the Thorn's house. This was based solely on the fact that they fenced their property and let people know who asked, that there indeed was a dispute. They are not assessed legal costs other than a small amount - the rest is damages supposedly incurred by the Thorns. B. What is supposed to be part of the curriculum may be presented - but that does not mean it is taught. C. The Olsons have engaged only in Free Speech. D. File complaints with the Bar and the Judicial Commission - just remember who is in charge of both. "

still don't get it wrote on Oct 10, 2006 3:39 PM:

" Did the Olson's know this land was theirs? Did they pay taxes on it? Did they let the Thorn's use the land out of neighborly friendliness? If so, they don't deserve this end of the stick! It seems to me if the Thorns had the opportunity to buy this land but chose not to, they are in effect saying "No, we do not want it." Now they say it's theirs? Old laws are thrown out for good reason. This law may need some restructuring. Possession is 9/10ths would apply only if there were no proof of ownership to begin with. It seems to me, by reading this article, that the Olsons knew this land was theirs and have been paying taxes on it. I hope the Thorns don't move next to me, I don't want that type for a neighbor! "

Trespassing wrote on Oct 10, 2006 3:07 PM:

" Based on the article I read in the Tribune the Thorns used the Olson land for at least twenty years then claimed adverse possession.Seems to me that the Thorns should be charged with 20 years of trespassing on Olson's property once it was determined by surveys that it was in fact Olson's land. "

From: Interesting.... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 2:14 PM:

" Thank you. Finally. "

Reality check wrote on Oct 10, 2006 2:03 PM:

" How many of you haven't heard the phrase "Possession is 9/10ths of the law"? You don't need a law degree to understand this age old concept. It is after all how our immigrant ancestors "stole" this land from the Native Americans! "

Get the facts wrote on Oct 10, 2006 1:56 PM:

" The assumptions and ignorance over this story are just staggering. A few corrections. A. The Olson's don't owe a "fine" but the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. B. Graduates of law schools in Wisconsin do not have to take the bar exam because that is part of the curriculum. C. Free speech does not allow speech that is deliberate, false and causes real harm to another. D. If the accusations of theft and fraud regarding Judge Damon have any validity, file a formal complaint or start a recall petition; otherwise it is nothing more than the whining of sore losers. "

Interesting.... wrote on Oct 10, 2006 1:39 PM:

" I've been a casual observer until now, but I must comment: none of the regular bloggers were able to answer the request for facts that came from "I am confused & need Help." Instead, the conversation continues with more opinionated bashing. Facts, please? "

Willing To Be Disobedient wrote on Oct 10, 2006 1:16 PM:

" Wasn�t the Civil Rights Movement based on a great deal of civil disobedience against the guys wearing robes, and the laws they hid behind? � but those robes were white and they wore hoods. "

I am confused & need Help wrote on Oct 10, 2006 12:35 PM:

" Is this property directly adjacent to both the Thorns & the Olsons? Mrs. Olson makes the claim that they have not taken the Fence & "No Trespassing" Signs down because they would have to go across either the Thorn's Property or the property of another neighbor who has withdrawn their permission to cross his land. Can someone who knows the facts explain this? "

Patriot wrote on Oct 10, 2006 12:22 PM:

" Why would you pay taxes on land that you DO NOT THINK IS YOURS? Answer, no one in their sane mind would. Therfore, paying the taxes should be in and of itself, a form of assertion of ownership. This means that less than 20 years passed without an assertion of ownership by the rightful owners. Not to mention that the Thorns never used the land as their own for 20 years. So even as moldy as this law is, it seems that it's reqirements are not met. "

Patriot to news flash wrote on Oct 10, 2006 12:09 PM:

" Here's a newsflash for you. Issues of personal property rights are one of the most important pillars of our country's structure. Not to mention the freedom of speech issues involved here. Both of which are FUNDAMENTALY much more important than current operations in Iraq and the like. "

Patriot wrote on Oct 10, 2006 12:00 PM:

" If the Throns bought land in that area in 1991, it is impossible that they have used it for 20 years as required under the law. Also, when you buy land you look at the documentation, (at the time a 1980 survey). The survey would have shown them the limits of their property. So they should be able to ignore that, encraoch upon their neighbor's land and then be given it? It's an outdated law but this case doesn;t even meet the reuirements of it such as it is. "

Mrs. Olson wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:57 AM:

" After reading the above blogs, it seems like most of them were authored by the same person. Probably Mrs. Olson. "

To Chico and Solomon wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:50 AM:

" Focus, man, Focus! "

Mr. Sol wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:49 AM:

" Hey Chico, Me think you doth (huh?) protest too much. The Olsons have complied with every order Solomon has made. He just keeps inserting new rules as Mr. Dan and Ms. Ellen request them. Not a really fair way to play. No one will want to play with them anymore if they don't learn to make nice. I think the wrong person was tagged with the Hitler association. Yahoo! "

Huh? wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:43 AM:

" "To 4:35 AM: If the buyers contacted the Olsons, what was it about those conversations that scared them off? Possibly the prospect of having a perpetually angry, litigious neighbor? That would do it for me." Makes no sense - the Thorns are the only litigious ones involved and they have moved. All the Olsons have done is defend themselves and attempt to settle this without going to court. Get the facts - Wondering. "

Laws wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:43 AM:

" Everyone has the right the disagree with the law about adverse possession. But that does not change the fact that it is a law, and that the Judge ruled based on this law. I think both sides should have tried to work it out more before it came to this. And I do not believe that "greed" was limited to just one side in this case. "

teacherchick wrote on Oct 10, 2006 11:09 AM:

" I read this story to my students. Their reaction: "That's not fair!" Even children can see the injustice in this situation. Yes, courts make decisions that we don't always agree with, but how would you like to give up part of your property, pay $27,500 for the privilege of following the judge's orders, and then not be able to put up a sign in protest? One of my students went home and told his dad to stop letting their neighbor graze their cows on their property. So much for "love thy neighbor." Now it has become "beware thy neighbor"(especially if they are a lawyer!)Everyone should be aware of adverse possession and that it may affect them! "

To Chico wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:57 AM:

" I don�t know Chico, I think your off the mark here. Civil disobedience refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government Anarchy 1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order "

To Solution wrote on Oct 10, 2006 10:48 AM:

" There was a guy who lived in Germany about 60 years ago who, like you, came up simple "solutions" to that country's problems. Like you, he didn't like lawyers. He liked to do things his own way without regard to the law, and lawyers kept telling him that he had to follow the rules. He came up with the same "solution" you propose - to get rid of all lawyers. His name was Adolph Hitler. Ever hear of him? "

Wondering wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:51 AM:

" To 4:35 AM: If the buyers contacted the Olsons, what was it about those conversations that scared them off? Possibly the prospect of having a perpetually angry, litigious neighbor? That would do it for me. "

Chico wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:04 AM:

" While you have the right to criticize the judge's decision, you don't have the right to ignore it. That's called anarchy, and let's not equate that with freedom. The Olsons have lots of excuses why they can't comply with what the judge ordered them to do. And they're interfering with the Thorns right to sell this property. My only criticism of Judge Damon is that 6 months jail isn't long enough to teach these yahoos what they need to learn. "

To Solomon wrote on Oct 10, 2006 9:00 AM:

" Thanks for the idea. I have a new career ahead of me. I'm going to buy a black robe tonight, and tomorrow, I'm going to start work in the courthouse as a judge. I'm very excited about this. "

Sneaky lawyers wrote on Oct 10, 2006 8:57 AM:

" Can't the Thorn's just be glad they got to use the land for all that time at the Olson's expense? If the Olson's actually owned it, then they own it! The Thorns shouldn't be able to take it simply because they want to sell thier own property more easily. If the Olson's were paying taxes on it, then it's theirs to either use or not use. And why should the Olson's go to jail if someone else doesn't take down their sign? That's crazy. Why is it OK for those liberal students to cause such a ruckus when the Minutemen want to give a speech, but these people can't have a simple sign in their yards? Doesn't make sense. "

Solution wrote on Oct 10, 2006 8:09 AM:

" Every seven years, get rid of all the lawyers. Problem solved. "

Mr. Solomon wrote on Oct 10, 2006 7:13 AM:

" Your "stay in the basement" comment is nothing short of amazing. Why anyone would theoretically agree with this ruling is baffling to all who have followed this case. People have every right in the USA to criticize this judge's decision. It's called freedom. What kind of country would this be if every decision was never challenged. It sounds kind of silly to not be able to criticize a person unless you can do their job better. A lot of occupations would surely enjoy that liberalism. To unequivocally accept everything as gospel is ignorant. "

over there =====> wrote on Oct 10, 2006 6:14 AM:

" what a shame. It was always my understanding that the law's purpose was for example: I cut across my neighbors property to fish and do this for at least 20 years. Now if the neighbor sells his property, the new owner still has to let me cut through. Not own. And if the Thorn's now own the property why don't they take down "their" fence! Seems to me the Olson's would be trespassing if they did. "

Conclusion wrote on Oct 10, 2006 5:08 AM:

" Solomon = Damon "

Mr. Sol wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:48 AM:

" I think you'll find there are 2 kinds of people in this world- complainers and doers. Next week enough people will continue to work on the issues discussed here in order to effect some change. Judges are not "totally" above the law and poor laws can be changed. Get over it, because you really don't have to join them in order to beat them. Power to the people! Judges are our servants - we need to re-educate and insure they do follow the law. "

To Amazing Conclusions wrote on Oct 10, 2006 4:35 AM:

" Read the records. The Olsons never contacted any of the buyers. 3 buyers testified at trial. They contacted the Olsons. All the Olsons did was tell them there was a dispute and Olosns held legal title to the .18 acres. Olsons never demanded the Thorns buy the land -they offered it at a fair price. How could they demand the Thorns buy it? Why do the Thorns want or need it since they moved their septic system? "

the lessons wrote on Oct 10, 2006 2:44 AM:

" The big lessons learned here are: Have your land professionally surveyed (early) and know where your property lines are. Do not, for any reason, allow others to outrightly use your land without written consent. Sometimes being neighborly is standing up for your own property rights and using the word "no" more often. From my own perspective though: I think this poor couple, who paid taxes on the land over the years, were dispicably treated by their neighbors. How could anyone trust such neighbors after doing such an underhanded thing? Neighbors used to watch out for each other and be kind to one another, not take something from them - especially their land. "

Amazing Conclusions wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:13 PM:

" If you are selling your house and your neighbor contacts buyer after buyer telling them not to buy because of a false issue, that is not "free speech". If the Olsons demanded the Thorns to pay for .18 acre even after the Thorns removed the ceptic, or else the Olsons continue to harass potential buyers, that's extortion. Maybe Adverse Possession was necessary to get the Olsons to stop interferring with the sale by demanding money. "

Solomon wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:07 PM:

" I'm sorry that the truth offends you. And, if being liberal means I believe in the rule of law, I guess you can call me that. You all want to criticize the judge's decision, and talk about recalling him, but you have no desire to put the effort in to become a judge yourself to prove you can do a better job. I just get tired of your ignorant whining. It's okay though. Next week, you'll find something else to complain about. "

Justice or greed? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:30 PM:

" Take time to review the facts of this case, as I did, and you will see this was not adjudicated impartially. There is no basis for granting Olson's land to Thorn. Greed! "

Can't be fooled wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:51 PM:

" Solomon, You sound like a bitter person, ...... and a lefty. You seem very vindictive for someone simply making a posting. Ulterior motives?? I guess that is part of your liberal slant however. De-mean everybody that has a different viewpoint then yours, while you pick and choose whatever is best for you and take what you want. Good gig - while it lasts. "

More questions wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:27 PM:

" What kind of lawyer would represent Thorn in this case? The kind that I wouldn't want to represent me! "

Mr. Sol wrote on Oct 9, 2006 5:59 PM:

" To Solomon, Were you in the courtroom when Damon performed his judgely duties? "I'll only apply the law if I agree with it" seems to be the way this fellow makes his rulings. If you weren't there- read the transcipts - They are all public record. People in the know have been reading them. More will follow. By the way did you know that Wisconsin lawyers do not have to pass the Bar exam, and I'd guess most don't? Most of the people you belittle could probably do a better job of lawyering than than those who carry the title. Question is how many of these fine people would want to be associated with this profession? "

Solomon wrote on Oct 9, 2006 4:35 PM:

" Circuit court judges are elected. Any of the legal scholars posting here are surely qualified to be judge. It's time to leave your parents' basements and get your names on the ballot! Oops, better get that law degree first. And, most judges have a good 10-15 years legal experience under their belt before they become judge. And you have to get people to vote for you too. I'm not sure the "I'll only apply the law if I agree with it" campaign is going to get you too far. Second thought, stay in the basement. "

Basic Freedom wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:56 PM:

" In regard to the News Flash comment : If someone were stealing your land and fining you $27,000 to boot, you would probably be singing a different tune. If something belongs to you then no one has the right to steal it. This is a basic human right. "

Response to "News Flash"... wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:54 PM:

" Yes, there are all sorts of things going on in the world more serious than this issue. BUT, I ask - how would YOU feel if it were YOUR property? Would it be insignificant then? And if, you feel this issue is so trivial, why did you bother to write a post about it - you ought to be out solving all the world's BIG problems! "

Land of the free? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:30 PM:

" Who has paid the taxes on this land? Who has never paid taxes on this land. Seems to me that if this "judge" allows this land to be stolen from the rightful owners that someone is owed back taxes with interest and penalties and any other dime they can drain from these people. Why so many surveys? Some people are just crazy, or should I say some judges? Good thing the Olsons don't live in China where they might kill you for disagreeing with your government. Here they will just take your property, make you pay the people who took your property and then threaten you with jail if you say anything about it. Sounds like a recall of a "good ol' boy", or maybe you could join the lawyer fraternity. "

Nancy Niesen wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:05 PM:

" My father, Frank Niesen, maintained land below our home in Bangor for more than 50 yrs. That land was bought by another man from the r.r and he tries and has succeeded in selling it to the landowners adjacent to the r.r It also should be grandfathered .... I aint buying... "

CURIOUS wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:04 PM:

" How are these Circuit Court Judges selected? Are these the guys on the ballot that always seem to go un-opposed, and we just vote for them because we don't know any better? Is Judge Damon up for re-election this fall? Can't and shouldn't we do better than this? "

FREE COUNTRY???? wrote on Oct 9, 2006 1:37 PM:

" If you are an attorney or a judge, it is a FREE COUNTRY, because you can twist the laws just right to read as you want them to. Seems a little suspicious that Thorn's hire an attorney from their law firm, did the judge work there too? Even though I am not a land owner at this time, I would put a sign up in my front yard. Ordering them to remove the signs is telling them to "shut-up", instead they are letting the public know how the laws work.... keep them up and make more... "

To wondering wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:52 PM:

" How important is your land to you? Have you had it surveyed? Are you sure? "

Survey wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:50 PM:

" To wondering - The Olsons were aware of the survey that had been done in 79/80, and relied on it. There was no need to do another one. As it turns out the surveys that have been done match the original one perfectly. How many surveys should there have to be? "

Sid wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:36 PM:

" To News Flash: Here's a news flash for you. Each of the issues that you cited is a problem, but ones that we will never have any control over. We do have control over the things that affect us such as free speech. If we don't take care of these sorts of issues now - someday you may be waking up in a country no better off than the ones you talk about. "

Reader wrote on Oct 9, 2006 12:13 PM:

" Judge Damon seems to find himself at the center of contoversy quite often. I read an article about him earlier this summer in the Coulee News. The author described how a case being decided by Judge Damon was handled like a "Kangaroo Court". Sounds like he's back at it. "

story wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:44 AM:

" I do thought the article in the Tribune was vague. A lot of details were left out that could have explained the story better. "

News Flash wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:43 AM:

" North Korea just tested a nuclear bomb....we are fighting a war in Iraq...we still haven't found Bin Ladan....New Orleans is still a mess..I think we have more important things to worry about instead of these two idiots fighting over who has ownership of the land. Get real people..next we'll be hearing from them because the train whistles are too loud:) Oh wait been there done that! "

Wondering wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:38 AM:

" When the Olsons bought the property in 1993,why didn't they have a survey done, if this parcel of land was so important to them? "

looking for more info wrote on Oct 9, 2006 10:08 AM:

" After the 2000 survey and the good faith offer to sell, why didn't the olsons demand removal of the encroahing equipment? "

Thanks for the facts wrote on Oct 9, 2006 9:13 AM:

" Its nice to see the details of the story coming out. Too bad the Tribune didn't find any of them pertinent and deserving of being included in the newspaper. "

8:36 am, Oct. 8th wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:51 AM:

" Get real. "

willing to help out wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:49 AM:

" I live on a high traffic street in La Crosse - give me your sign... I'll put it up for you! "

wow: wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:34 AM:

" why is a trempeleau judge deciding this? "

I'm with "to common law" wrote on Oct 9, 2006 8:20 AM:

" even when we (non lawyers) put in an addition that might have needed a variance, we borrowed a metal detector and found the rods just below the ground that designated the lot lines. Lo and behold my plants are planted on our neighbors side. Looks like he just got some plants because I'm not taking his property! by the way, we added on in a way to not need a variance! "

Use old laws wrote on Oct 9, 2006 7:17 AM:

" Once again we have someone finding a law that benefits them (attorney at that) and using it for their gain. Just imagine if they were to enforce all old laws like adultery. This all seems like an attorney and a judge manipulating the system for their benefit and now they are going after the small farmers what�s next? "

sounds like a wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:37 AM:

" CATFIGHT. Meow. Grrrr. "

Joel wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:35 AM:

" If there is an movement to RECALL this guy there are thousands of veterans that would help "

I want more land wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:11 AM:

" So, if I go plant some flowers in my neighbors yard next to my house and take care of them,and mow that part of his yard for 20 years...........I will have a bigger lawn!! How cool is that?????? "

poorly written article wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:03 AM:

" This is a rather poorly written article with little done to help the confused. I did notice, however, that the Olsons cannot take down the Signs without accessing either a neighbor's or the Thorn's property. So basically the property in question is not contiguous to the Olson's property. So how would they now claim it is their "land"? "

John Dammon wrote on Oct 9, 2006 6:03 AM:

" As a veteran I will always remember his Harring field decison "

Reality Chec k wrote on Oct 9, 2006 5:55 AM:

" To the lawyer who authored Common Law: This case doesn't appear to be as black and white as you make it. Actually, nothing is clear cut unless you are a lawyer who can twist around reality. I think if you'd look at this from a hard-working, tax paying viewpoint, you'd see that the Olson's are right. "

To Chico wrote on Oct 9, 2006 3:07 AM:

" I happen to know the Olsons. You keep right on thinking how stupid and self righteous they are- you couldn't be more off the mark. You (ABT and company) have made a serious error in your assessment of them. Batten down the hatches, because from what I have heard there is a lot more to this case than we all know. Tenacious is the first word that comes to mind when I think of this pair. "

To Common Law wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:54 AM:

" The problem with this case is, the Olsons were aware they owned this land, and were using/ attempting to use it. Now the judge is telling them to keep quiet about what happened and basically telling them they can't publically complain about this poor law. It is a law that is very old and is no longer needed in the modern day of accurate surveys. By the way the Thorn property was surveyed in 1979/1980 and when the Olsons surveyed in 2000; those original survey pins were easily found. Since 2000 the Thorns have surveyed no less than 2 more times, and apparently the survey keeps matching the original survey. "

The Facts wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:45 AM:

" To: "Just a Reader: In March of 2000 the Thorns could have purchased this parcel of land from the Olsons for $1361.50. They declined. This is the same price per acre for which the adjacent land was sold, plus the cost of the survey. Why didn�t the Thorns pay this paltry sum for the land rather than the course they have chosen - waiting until July of 2005 to file this suit? They did't try to take adverse posssession through the courts until 6 months after they had put their property ( with the septic system encroachment) on the market. How many potential buyers did they neglect to inform that there was a boundary concern during this time? Keep in mind they could have purchased this land in 2000 for $1361.50, when they were formally made aware of the septic as well as other encroachments. "

Common Law wrote on Oct 9, 2006 2:22 AM:

" Why is everyone critizing a law that dates back to early England before political parties. It's a law that rewards the use of land over non-use by an owner that is unaware of his/her ownership. Just Google "adverse possession" and learn the reason this law is used in every state of this nation on a regular basis. If you don't know it's yours for over 20 years, you lose it. "

Malcolm wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:57 PM:

" Chico, Seriously dude, you need to get a life or some heavy duty help. I'm going to guess that you're an Arndt/Thorn sympathizer and if you are - that's OK. We can work with you and get that corrected. There are a lot of facts however, and dirty little secrets that unfortunates such as yourself are not aware of. Take a couple of aspirins and maybe you'll be alright in the morning. Good Night Barre Mills and let Freedom Reign!!! "

To 8:36am poster wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:32 PM:

" You have got to be kidding me right? "

hey all a partial stay has been approved - 10/05 wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:06 PM:

" on the wscca case website, it appears that a partial stay has been approved. If I read correctly, then the signs can "stay up" as long as they are not on the .18 acre. Why isn't anyone reporting as these things happen. looks like other rulings are coming 10/20. check it out. "

Here's my sign...... wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:01 PM:

" ......you cross onto my property without my permission you will be shot! NO EXCEPTIONS! "

to chico wrote on Oct 8, 2006 9:39 PM:

" what was the friendly "working out" that the thorns wanted to do? Seems to me that they just keep encroaching, first on the olsons and now on the rest of us who want a fair fight. "

to just a reader wrote on Oct 8, 2006 9:37 PM:

" the asking price for the land which was set aside just so the thorns wouldn't have to get a variance was $1000.00 (that's a steal..oh wait, I guess what they did was steal!). as far as someone calling the Olson's stupid, you need to get all the facts, and doing a simple search on the names of those involved will give you the agenda minutes of the county meetings, etc. "

Mac wrote on Oct 8, 2006 9:03 PM:

" From what I've been able to gather the point of contention was a septic system extended onto Olson's property. The lot was parceled off in 1980. The Thorn's bought it in 1991. The Olson's bought in 1993. Neither sites were resurveyed. In 1999 the Olson's extended their septic field onto the property in question, having no idea they were doing so. In 2000 the Olson's resurveyed and found the Thorn's to be encroaching and offered to sell them land for the septic system and they refused. In 2005 the Thorn's wanted to sell, but had the problem of the septic system on land in dispute. They filed suit to take the property. The judge found that the Thorn's owned the property back to 2000, 20 years from the date of the original survey, just before the time that the Olson's resurveyed. "

Where's my sign? wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:28 PM:

" Where do I get my sign? Where do these lawyers work? I'll put MY sign in the back of MY truck and park it on the PUBLIC street closest to their office! "Sign" me up. "

So much for the 1st amendment wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:51 PM:

" Can't put up signs that disagree with a judge's ruling? Hmmm. He must be a republican. "

NEWS wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:42 PM:

" Network talk has it that the Wisconsin Appeals Court may have granted an emergency stay in this court case. This stay would keep the Olson's out of jail and allow them to keep their yard signs and "every body's" signs up concerning this important case. This would be a tremendous victory for those of you in the State of Wisconsin whom believe that citizens should not only have - but be able to exercise their First Amendment rights. The Tribune will hopefully have a follow-up article in a few days. Stay tuned. "

Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:10 PM:

" I'm reading postings on today's Tribune article with great interest. "Solomon's" appears somewhat benign on the surface, but causes me difficulty. He speaks of the Olson's "having their day in court". Surely you must understand that they are also entitled to a fair decision and consequences as provided through our system of appeal. If Judge Damon has carefully considered honest testimony and put together a sound decision, neither he nor you should have any concerns. The Appeals Court will uphold the decision that he has made and then the Olson's "will" have had their day in court. If the Judge has made a decision based on anything other than solid evidence and existing case law in this area, then the chances are extremely high that it will be overturned by a higher court. Please Solomon, let's not tell others to "move on" before the judicial process has been completed. "

In favor of real justice! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:07 PM:

" Mabey the judge in this case needs to be recalled!!!! "

Observer wrote on Oct 8, 2006 6:41 PM:

" I'm reading the posted comments to this Tribune article with interest. "

America wrote on Oct 8, 2006 6:38 PM:

" Let me get this right. The Olson's had their property taken from them, they have been accessed $30,000 in fines for trying to protect it, and now they are facing six months in jail because they are asserting their freedom of speech? Is this America? Shame on Judge Damon. Hopefully there is someone out there that will slap his hands for his most recent wrong `decision to take the Olson's First Ammendment rights away. "

In favor of real justice! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 5:41 PM:

" Mabey the judge in this case needs to be recalled!!!! "

Concern in Sowi wrote on Oct 8, 2006 5:05 PM:

" Taking the land away from the Olson's is bad enough, but trying to stop them from speaking freely is unconstitutional..... That is, of course, until a lawyer is able to distort the truth. "

Chico wrote on Oct 8, 2006 4:49 PM:

" Let me get this straight. The Olsons are too stupid to understand the law and also too stupid to seek legal advice. When they figure out they might need to talk to a lawyer, it's 20 years too late, and they're too self-righteous to work out a friendly solution. So, the Thorns are supposed to subsidize the Olsons stupidity and stubbornness by giving them what doesn't belong to them? The Olsons deserved to lose in court, and if they continue to ignore the judge's orders, they will again get what they deserve. "

where are the title insurance people when you need them! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 4:36 PM:

" What good is title insurance if someone can take away what is yours. "

to adverse possession wrote on Oct 8, 2006 4:34 PM:

" whatever the law may be . . . Actually doing is isn't NICE. Thorns made a mistake thinking something belonged to them when it didn't, now they don't want to admit their mistake. They built where they shouldn't have and put in a septic where it shouldn't have been. All without getting a survey. Gee, even I know that you get a survey when you want to change a property or go for a variance. "

This is America wrote on Oct 8, 2006 4:27 PM:

" The Thorns steal the Olson's land, the Olson's are forced to defend themselves and a less than honorable judge socks them with a ludicrous fine and the loss of their right to Freedom of Speech ..... and this is The United States of America ? "

Just a Reader wrote on Oct 8, 2006 4:22 PM:

" How much was the asking price for this disputed piece of land that the Thorns so desperately had to have ? I would think fairly pricey for all the trouble the Thorns have gone to in order to wrestle this land away from the Olsons. Just wondering ? "

where wrote on Oct 8, 2006 3:45 PM:

" I live a bit more than 2 miles from the property down the highway. Where can I get a sign? "

NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote for a Democrat." wrote on Oct 8, 2006 3:43 PM:

" Yeah, you're right, vote for those gay child molesters called republicans instead! "

Micah 2:1-4 wrote on Oct 8, 2006 3:43 PM:

" "Therefore thus say the Lord; behold, against this family I (the Lord) am devising disaster, from which you cannot remove your necks, and you shall not walk haughtily for it will be atime of disaster. To the Thorns: It really isn't too late to make this all right. "

Micah 2:1-2 wrote on Oct 8, 2006 3:40 PM:

" "Woe to those who devise wickedness and work evil on their own beds! When the morning dawns, they perform it because it is in the power of their hand. They covet fields and seize them and housees, and take them away; They oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance." "

wow! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 3:37 PM:

" I'm with "but why?". Olson's offer to sell at fair price after paying to have it surveyed, Thorns refuse and 5 years later they not only take what doesn't belong to them but the Olson's have to pay them to take it. "

But why?????????? wrote on Oct 8, 2006 1:55 PM:

" I don't understand who could/would write a law like this. If it's not mine, I shouldn't be using it. Why would I think I can use someone else's property? What am I missing here???? "

Git 'er Done wrote on Oct 8, 2006 1:49 PM:

" For "more to the story" - you are so right there is a lot more to it. The Olsons Surveyed out the parcel of land at the center of this lawsuit in March of 2000 and offered to sell the Thorns at the same price they were selling adjacent land. The Thorns refused. At the time of this survey the Thorn lot was not quite 20 years old. There was no fence or mistake in where the boundary was, as you describe, on the part of the Olsons- rather there had been an increasing encroachment on the part of the owners of Thorn lot over time. No fence, treeline or garage etc. to mark this line. Things aren't always as simple or straighforward as they seem. "

Mr. Sol wrote on Oct 8, 2006 1:38 PM:

" Dear Sol- Your arrogance reveals your identity. Everyone thought the Thorns owned the property for almost 30 years?? My understanding is the Thorn lot is approximately 27 years old. Neat trick. The Olsons bought the property and have paid taxes on it for nearly 14 years. They rented the land 6 years before that. They have asserted that it was theirs continuously and remain the holders of the legal title to this parcel. Re-read your own words: �The law is the law. Everyone is bound by it.� The Thorns and their representative attorney, Dan Arndt of Arndt, Buswell and Thorn hopefully will eventually come to understand that. "

Notice the people who stole the land and their attorney have the same last name?! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:43 AM:

" I feel for the Olson's. What an injustice. I think the Thorns knew what they were doing with full attempt to steal the land out from under the Olson's who were not aware of this stupid law. I say we should all put up those signs, what are they going to do put us all in jail? Pathetic! My heart goes out to the Olson family, and for the Thorn family......well you reap what you sew! "

More to the story wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:20 AM:

" Usually situations like this occur when someone buys a property and it has a driveway or road that was laid out a long time ago. Or a yard runs up to a tree line or fence that was put up 40 years ago. The people use and maintain that driveway or land for decades and then something changes like a road gets updated or a new addition goes up. The neighbor then denies access and as a result harms the user. This is a common problem wherever surveys are not required. In this case Thorn just happens to be a lawyer and the Olson's are foolishly full of sour grapes, but there are dozens of similar situations in this county. "

Solomon wrote on Oct 8, 2006 10:09 AM:

" The Olsons' arrogance is disturbing. Why do they believe they are above the law? Everyone thought the Thorns owned the property for almost 30 years. The Olsons can wake up one morning and decide it's theirs? Six months in jail sounds like a just penalty for someone who has no respect for the rule of law. To the Olsons: The law is the law. Everyone is bound by it. You had your day in court with the assistance of an attorney, and you lost. Move on. "

Git 'er Done wrote on Oct 8, 2006 9:38 AM:

" To "Adverse Possession 1:50 AM" You guys at ABT Law Offices must stay up pretty late:)Anyone who cares to look into the facts of this case will quickly find that this clearly was a manipulation of the law and the system. There is a whole lot more to this story than meets the eye. I hear the trial transcript will soon be ready. Funny what 2 lawyers and a judge can do with numbers to make them add up to 20. Hopefully the Judges at the appeals court did pass general math in High School. "

Not Me! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 9:36 AM:

" I wouldn't want to even think of purchasing the Thorn's property..Just because of how the Thorn's treated their neighbors and their greed. Gee Ellen, maybe that's why it hasn't sold...the words are out about you! Nobody gonna want it now. Maybe you'll have to stay there and enjoy being snubbed. "

wow! wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:50 AM:

" Also, where can we get a sign that doesn't land someone in jail?! "

To Ellen wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:49 AM:

" And a very good looking attorney at that! "

imagine that wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:49 AM:

" A lawyer being petty. Forget doing what is right and neighborly, lets take it to court. What jerks! I hope when people are looking for an attorney they get a real lawyer, and not this petty one that needs a hobby. This is how they spend their time? Obviously they aren't spending their time fighting for their clients if they are stealing land from their neighbors. Just because you twist the law to your advantage doesn't mean this is right. THIS is how they treat their NEIGHBOR. Maaaaan "

wow wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:48 AM:

" I am amazed this has not gotten more coverage. You need to read the original August article to see the injustice. If I understand this correctly, even if you pay taxes and take care of your property you may not own if if someone plants something on your border. West Salem has the worst "neighbor relations" I have ever seen in any community! When will people get "it" that you can't treat your neighbors like this. Shame on you to the Thorns and what ever system allows this to happen. "

Strange wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:45 AM:

" What a strange statute. And who would know about it except an attorney? "

This law needs to be changed wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:36 AM:

" Squatter's Right's that's what we have here. Democrat, Liberal lawyers...this is what you get. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER vote for a Democrat. "

Concerned Citizen wrote on Oct 8, 2006 8:36 AM:

" Here we have another case of someone who knows the law and its unfairness, taking advantage of someone who doesn't and using what is suppose to be our great legal system to their personal advantage. I don't believe that this little law on the books was ever meant for someone to use it in this manner. I think this is a travisty and a sham, not to mention an embarassment and deffinately shows all the bad that can be our legal system. Apparently people who are not schooled in law have no fair chance in living in this country anymore. I believe Jay Leno said it best when he said, "You know what you call a cruise ship of lawyers that sink in the ocean...a good start." Something needs to be done to prevent injustice like this whole case from happening in the future. "

So let me get this straight... wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:57 AM:

" You can sue me to TAKE my land away from me and I have to pay for it? What? And how were the Thorn's using the land all this time if the Olson's fence was impeding them? Sounds pretty fishy to me. "

Give me a sign wrote on Oct 8, 2006 7:45 AM:

" I'll put one up in my yard! "

why wrote on Oct 8, 2006 6:27 AM:

" should the olsons have to remove a sign on their property.they can put it on my property.what a bunch of bull. "

what wrote on Oct 8, 2006 6:23 AM:

" a stupid law. "

Adverse Possession wrote on Oct 8, 2006 1:50 AM:

" Every year there are a number of adverse possession cases. 20+ years of open and notorious use makes the property yours. That's not a manipulation of the law, that's an application of the law that is available to anyone who has used property that long. "

attorneys wrote on Oct 8, 2006 12:00 AM:

" It's worth noting that Ellen Thorn is an attorney and well versed in manipulating the law. "

SECTION SPONSORS

Ads by Yahoo!

Stickhead Lacrosse

2009 Buick LaCrosse

Lacrosse Equipment

Comments »

Post a comment (150 word limit) »

NEWSPAPER ADS

LACROSSE JOBS

TOP HOMES