Why is there a mugshot here? Someone must not believe in the concept of Innocent until PROVEN Guilty!

TH 3 Agreed. This is the government process....mugshot, charged, post mug online..guilty or not? Stories not jiving or can't remember? What the hey? Sounds like the local law officials are not thorough enough in the investigative/collection of evidence process. Maybe a close MO to the NH cops? Just goes to show you when dealing with the locals PDs'...be careful of the slippery slope called law enforcement. Totally ridiculous IMO.

Country Boy, It sure seems like there is some kind of vendetta going on here against Patt A. Colten. I haven't been able to follow all the details. But my understanding is that this stems from a simple property dispute and has escalated to a ridiculous level. I only recall a few "mug" shots posted here on the Patch. The only other one I can think of is that of an accused child molester. Even the accusation here isn't anywhere near that kind of offense. But now this woman will be branded as a criminal even if she is exonerated. Doesn't seem very fair does it?
I think where we disagree CB is that you want to say that all Govt. is bad because of incidents like this. I don't believe that's the case. A lot of people who work in the public sector work very hard and do their jobs well. I wish you'd consider that.

Country Boy, just read this story. A couple of witnesses SAID Colten committed a crime. And now she's being tried for this! "Totally ridiculous IMO" Again I agree.
If this is the way the law should work, I could accuse CB of stealing my Recall Walker sign, get a couple of my buddies to say it was Country Boy, and call the police. That's the analogy here. Pretty stupid. ( BTW, CB, I would NOT do that ! :-) )

TH3 said "A couple of witnesses SAID Colten committed a crime." Heck - that'll get you arrested and thrown into a squad for a while in North Hudson!

Wow, you people have a skewed view of how the criminal justice system works. I will reiterate the point that if only the crimes witnessed by law enforcement officials were the crimes people were charged with or prosecuted for, our world would be full of criminals running rampant. If someone witnesses a crime, they report it and law enforcement responds. This is such a simple notion, why don't you people get this?

Thank you B Dog. We all have a responsibility to help enforce our laws and do what is right. If the investigation was done poorly, that is one thing. However, to say that there should not have been an investigation is to condone the behavior.

TH3: I will re-address the govnmt comment=should have read: the "local" process was...
BD, Sounds like you are a expert on law enforcement issues...more like just your opinion...or are you working in the criminal justice system? Everyone is entitled to their opnion. I just don't agree with yours. So?
M, Who said anything about NOT performing an investigation? Read what was put out there for comment first. IMO!!

Country Boy, Do you think that the only crimes that should be investigated are crimes that members of the law enforcement community witness with their own eyes? You think that "local law enforcement" (whatever that means) are ill-equipped to investigate crimes? Every law enforcement agency is "local" to somewhere; why is Hudson or St. Croix County less competent than any other agency. Just put it in perspective. My point here is that if you witnessed a hit and run where a 10 year old child was was run down by a motorist, don't you think it's not only right, but is obligatory, for you to contact police and report the crime? I don't see why this case is any different. Someone witnessed something they thought was wrong, passed it on to law enforcement and they, intern, investigate. I have no ties to Colten or law enforcement at all, quite honestly, it seems that the evidence doesn't won't hold a candle and I think the case seems rediculous - I'm just saying that eyewitness reports to law enforcement are crucial to keeping criminals at bay.

BD, Wow, A little wound up this am? Who said anything about ill equipped? Or reporting suspicious activity? You have your opinion. No amount of your "points" will alter my opinion. Careful your soapbox is starting to wobble...lol!

When a Police Officer knows that his informate has given false information but continues to single out Colten and "try to find something" in order to pursue arrest, that is called malicious prosecution. In this case the complaintant said that Colten recorded her conversation and submitted this conversation on DVD with a letter. The records contained in 11CF292 ,show that Adkinson met with the complaintant on May 9. The records 10CV616 (open for public viewing) show that the HPD picked up the DVD's prior to May 9th and were aware that the phone complaint was false, but apparently decided to charge Colten anyway. The Crime here is the power of Law enforcement and the Courts to deprive an individual of there 14th amendment right to liberty.

CB, the maybe I took it out of context, but the "ill equipped" message was in response to "Sounds like the local law officials are not thorough enough...". Take it as ill-equipped, ill-trained, or whatever you want. You did make me laugh a little, no matter what the talking points, why can't you admit the merit in having citizens inform law enforcement officials of things they deem suspicious?

B Dog in this case the witness reported that the DVDS given to the Judge were of a recorded conversation of herself, her boyfriend, and what she referred to as their Attorney, Max Neuhaus. Colten told the judge she overheard the three of them because they were talking so loud all laughing and making plans to say the property was posted so they could get Colten convicted of criminal trespassing instead of a municipal charge for walking on a city right of way. Colten told the Judge the reason she appealed the case was to get a fair trial with a jury based on the same real evidence. She wanted some reassurance from the Judge that Neuhaus and his two witnesses were not going to be allowed to change the facts of the case in order to convict her for something she didn't do. Public records show that Adkinson had the DVDs from the court file and knew that the Complainant claims were false prior to his interview with the complainant. What should the law enforcement Officer have done if he was following the law? Also I agree that law enforcement should investigate claims of wrong doing by citizens, but if they investigate and find proof that the informant had knowingly lied to harm the person they have accused, what should they do about that? If Neuhaus and the witnesses are admitting that Coltens report of what she heard was correct, than why aren't they on trial. If they are denying that conversation took place, than there was no interception therefore no crime.

Justice will be served ONLY when ALL of "players" in this fiasco are held accountable for their contribution (illegal and otherwise)! Patt Colten has been run through a financial and emotional thrasher! Truly, SHAME on you all and YOU know who YOU are. What do YOU see when YOU look in the mirror? Well, it matters not what you see. KARMA. None of us can escape the karma we create. Good and Bad.

Reporting an "observation" is one thing, but if you make an "accusation" you oughta then be held accountable to back it up with FACTS. False accusations can destroy lives. If I, officially, accuse someone of doing something I know is not true, then I should face the legal consequences that should follow. That is just.

Folks, remember that this is the same defendant the Patch first reported on in October. Colten sent a letter to the Judge stating: "I recorded them." As this author references through his link to Wisconsin statute, 968.31(1)(a) is one simple sentence that makes it illegal to secretly record someone else's private conversation.

Based on Colten's written admission sent to the Court, the Judge had to answer the question as to whether or not Colten probably broke the law. Well, goodness, what choice did she give the Judge?

I for one am glad that the law protects my private conversations from uninvited secret listeners.

Since that letter is now a public record, let me know if you want me to post it. Go Patch Go!