the other side says what he says i understand how that works but even under america's weight standard sometimes a judge can get it wrong and i think in this case he did get it wrong and as to the watch there were heard what would be the opposite of that they all said no we kept telling him to push it back he was coming onto our property now the testimony is they didn't well at least for mr cornwell mr packard and other witnesses as well get to wrong it's one witness mr justin titus said that but all of the aerial photographs to other witnesses and then mr terry tice at times all said all the way back to the wash all the time just no matter what he says we have to agree with it that we we wouldn't be here there is still a manifest way standard i know that standard is difficult but in this case it's three witnesses all cooperated by aerial photographs so judging it as a whole it is clear that judge lewis simply got this one wrong sometimes good judges can get something wrong i believe he got it wrong in this case and i think when taken together all of those witnesses and all the aerial photographs just paint a picture that cannot be overcome by one witness and i know that judges always use that one when this is language of this ford or that just doesn't make it rock solid can't you rever witness for obviously the appellee here he was asked would you agree with me from the time he jerry started moving stuff onto the property he was stacking stuff further west in that state right there the state being the th actual property line answer that is correct but maybe not all the way out to the telephone pole correct there is pictures that show it wasn't out to the telephone pole i will agree with that says mr titus but from the time jerry moved out there would you agree maybe at least single day as part of his job and says yup i'll testify that it was always half way to the telephone poll from a tiny moved out there so one hundred and twenty three witnesses and adverse witness saying yes to that question and all the aerial photographs manifest weight and i know that's a difficult standard i think that in this case it's appropriate to look at all the evidence all the witnesses and say yes most photographs cooperate the testimony of the witnesses isn't correct it was never all the way back to the boundary line on either side and give the course referring to the movement it would be fur it would be referring to the movement on the west side as the property line correct it doesn't have to be i guess bumper to bumper cars literally get a straight one hundred and thirty eight very easily identified lying on the south wind on the south side running east and west in this picture show it right and i understand he's again there is a surveyor who came out and said ok it will probably line fifty five feet to the wash going west so that at that i suppose there was a survey here a plaque map showing said on several occasions members and i would quote the members is plural of the titus family talked to mr st john's about coaching personal property saying john didn't move the personal property but as time passed location of the stor well be that that john was back there at that point in time when my client's asked move it back you moved it back and they didn't take a picture of that with the picture one time per year right  was out there how far back it moved but as you point out the posing counsel would have had to prove all of the elements and st possession so is it true that even if the corps had simply found in my purse sister of interest to jump across we literally we heard soil we did these kind of things and i believe that's equitable i don't believe that's what the law was meant to do i don't think you can through jump across a person's ground property was permissible it just doesn't apply to this type of case on occupied or vacate grounds meaning if i put my junk in nobody's ever going to see it ok maybe that's the nature they're forming this every year it's not that they will see it that the trial court used to find that it was permissive which i think it has to be because it was no testimony whatsoever that says yeah i said he did i could he could put it there all the testimony is every time we got to go too far we said something to him we never let would move on the west side sometimes he would get a telephone pole it would move back sometimes one has to back to the watch by mr cornwell and mr patrick and sometimes mr terry titus was all the way back to the wash never moved that property didn't move now also there was there was a reference council said that justin titus said i consider the watch all fifty five feet mr titus circled the watch more than once on those photographs move or when he was confronted that he was encroaching on somebody else's right there was testimony by mr justin titus who said that again that's that's the nature property but it wouldn't be mr carmel's claim because it would be where you move your property so you didn't have it up to this line the whole time but it would not have been permissive and no just because if you say get your stuff on the property it doesn't mean it was permissibly on the the twenty four between the midway point to the telephone pole and that the court could find that the argument was not to tell from paul where the property was sometimes it was it was always half way to the telephone pole all the time and that's four out of five witnesses and all of the aerial photographs as to the watch the same is true three are for the argument would be and all the aerial photographs show the property goes all the way to the wash all the time never move always thought this is the property of art i've always treated it this is the property that i bought and this is that when he says this is my property this is what we all thought i had now is there twenty four mean that sometimes i push too far ok that's why we