-
Website
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters -
Original page
http://blogs.denverpost.com/eletters/2007/11/22/land-grab-in-boulder-3-letters/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
The level to which this judicial degenerate, a crony and pathetic example of a former mayor, and the crony's shyster companion have sunk is beyone description.
It merely underscores the perception many have of the judicial system and the typical lawyer.
Klein should be sripped of his robe which he can then use to wrap garbage, and his two partners in theft might rethink their impoverished position as residents of a community they have disgraced beyond description.
May their home's welcome mat forever be covered with excrement.
But why are we surprised?
A law degree, today, is nothing more than a license to steal from innocent people.
For those who own businesses in Boulder (or the surrounding area), who work for businesses in Boulder (or the surrounding area) you have a recourse to show your displeasure for Richard McLean, Edith Stevens, their lawyers, and the judge who "gave" them the land. Simply refuse them service when they come into your establishment. You have the right to refuse service to anyone, and if anyone deserves to be refused service, it's these..."people"!
We have the power to have our say about this injustice. It's obvious this couple has the courts in their back pocket and won't stand up for what is right, so it time for us "common folk" to take over! If any of these people happen to come into your establishment, simply say..."WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO YOU, GOODBYE!"
I hope the legal system realizes what a mistake they have made and returns the property to the rightful owners, the Kirlins.
In Colorado, the law states if the owner of the property doesn't evict someone who has taken physical control of their property and used it (or - as the scum who knew the law did - some portion of it) for 18 years, the ownership goes to the bastards who stole it. In other words, if the people who bought the land had put a fence around it & the very first time the "neighbors" chose to use it, either had them sign a lease for use of the property, or had them evicted as trespassers, they would still own all of the land they bought.
If you don't like the law, move to get it changed. Don't be surprised if the ruling stands. In addition, if you own a piece of land in Colorado, make sure to protect it from squatters unless/until the law is changed. Meanwhile, I suspect the only recourse the couple will have is to sue the squatters for the property taxes & homeowners dues they have paid over the years - and I also suggest immediately building something UGLY on what is left of the property (I know it has to meet homeowners declarations, but that doesn't mean that it can't be ugly anyway).
I like the idea of stoning the couple in a public square. They deserve to rot if allowed to "steal" this property from the rightful owners. Hard to believe there is a stipulation on the books allowing this type of thing. Karma is a beautiful thing. Unfortunate truth about lawyers....when you need them, they are a necessary evil in this society....when you don't, they truly are vermin.
The law should be changed!
I hope that the Post will remind readers of this event when election time comes.
"Any residential real estate that has been increased in size due to adverse possesion shall have a real estate tax of $1,000 per square foot anually. Proceeds from the collected taxes shall be given to the owners of the adversly posessed land. That would more or less bankrupt the scum land grabbers... why can't we use the law also in our favor. Saying "tisk, tisk, tisk to the land grabbers DOES NOTHING... pass a city or county ordinance to take from them.
Steven, in my view, that would merely be legitimizing what McLean and Stevens have done. Let's look at what we're dealing with here. The plaintiffs file a lawsuit claiming ownership, which they rationalize by their own admission that for years they were trespassing on private property without being called on it by the land owner. And now, citing an obscure legal provision that most of us have never even heard of, that becomes their basis for claiming ownership of the land?????
If the law can be used for something so transparently fraudulent and injurious to one's neighbors, then something is terribly wrong with the law and it needs to be fixed. That’s why I feel that the Kirlin's fight is everybody’s fight. If it happened to them, then it could happen to any property owner and I might very well find myself becoming the next mugging victim.
I would like to know how the verbiage of that law mad Judge Klein come to the conclusion that McLean and Stevens regular trespassing made them "more attached" and therefore deserving of ownership of the property than the Kirlins who were paynig annual property taxes and monthly HOA fees.
How does knowinlgy trespassing on another person's property have more legal weight than paying taxes and fees on it?
I, for one, don't believe that it does.
McLean and Stevens knew the property belonged to someone else and because it was in the same subdivision they live in, they surely knew that the owner of that property was paying the fees to that same HOA that they are.
When considering property ownership, the regular payment of property taxes and other fees should absolute take priority over any adverse possession claims especially when it involves trespassing.
The Kirlins should contact the U.S. Attorney for the State of Colorado and have these ingrates investigated for conspiracy with intent to defraud and any other criminal charge that can be lobbed at them that will stick. Using a legal means to achieve an illegal end (theft) is still a crime. The intent to steal is very clear here.
They should be required to give the land back, pay their own attorney fees, pay restitution and punitive damages to the Kirlins, as well as THEIR legal fees. Somebody in Colorado needs to grow a spine and throw the damn book at them for this.
Public shunning by us commoners isn't a bad idea either. I hope the Boulder High Society are just as mad as we are and stop inviting them to their posh parties.
I for one wouldn't let these people into my house because the minute my back was turned they'd probably steal all the silver plate I own and someone else's fur coat out of the closet. McClean and Stevens are despicable.
This story has legs -- I'm from another state and have no vested interest in Colorado law, but find it fascinating. It's about basic right and wrong, fairness and justice. I think the story will get national coverage -- and bring a heated response almost 100% in favor of the Kirlins.
Hopefully, the Kirlins will win on appeal and all their property and the money they had to spend on legal fees will be returned to them. As to McLean and Stevens, even if they get to keep the Kirlin's property, I think the parties they'll be holding on it will be considerably smaller. Even if they're able to win in the courts, they are truly losers.
And to even consider public opinion, if such is uniform or overwhelming. No one seems to have stated in any one of several newspaper reports, columns, or blogs an opinion siding with McLean/Stevens. Why not?
The original adverse possession statutes were enacted in response to speculators' hiring straw-man "settlers" to make claims on free federally-owned "Homestead Act" land. These fictitious "settlers" weren't interested in farming or ranching. They "sold" the properties to their OWN EMPLOYERS, who living in places like New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago and St. Louis, didn't farm or ranch the properties, they just put them on the market and waited to sell them.
A lot of REAL settlers started "squatting", making use of the land, and it was in states' interests to promote settlement and land-use productivity. The intent of the law was to discourage privatizing government-owned land, without using it, merely to turn it over to real settlers who otherwise should have enjoyed free claims on this government-owned land.
That historical raison d'etre for adverse posssession statutes has zero applicability to modern privately-owned land sold to private buyers. Even if the Kirlins had no intention to build a home, even if they were speculator-investors themselves, they paid a market-based private party to private party purchase cost. In a residential-use only transaction. The original statute had no substantial applicability. If it did, potential property buyers would have had to be warned, by sellers, REALTOR transaction-agents, the legal community and the media that all residential purchased property must be guarded against "squatter" intrusion.
Because the property was in a planned development that imposed Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions that imposed property-maintenance requirements beyond those of state and city regulations, and dues to be paid to a communal Homeowners Association the Kirlins complied. If the Kirlins failed to comply, they could have been subjected to penalties, including liens of attachment, and forced sale, if necessary, to recover HA legal costs from the property owners.
McLean/Stevens were never subjected to these requirements or costs.
The HA never warned homeowners, "Your property is subject to adverse possession, if you don't evict your neigbhors who have designs on your property, because you're not developing it." So the HA could arguably have to pay the Kirlins. If they says, "We didn't know the law," that's too bad. The HA is fiduciarally responsible to protect its member homeowners' rights, so long as they obey all HA rules. That's its only reason for existence. If it failed to do this, it's liable.
The Kirlins also obviously paid property taxes. If they had failed to do this, their property could have been confiscated by the county.
McLean/Stevens didn't do this.
If, for some reason, somebody were injured on the Kirlin's property, for example if somebody traipsing over the property tripped and injured himself or herself, who might be sued? Not the McLean/Stevens, who would have effectively used their shrewd lawyerly prowess to prove, "It's not our property." It would have been the Kirlins.
BTW, did the Kirlins have a property insurance policy on the parcel, to cover liabilities? If they did, this would constitute additional evidence of THEIR attachment, beyond paying HA dues, complying with CCRs and paying property taxes.
McLean/Stevens didn't have any property-ownership responsibilities or liabilities. A little seasonal "garden" costing a few bucks for seeds and water, a no-cost woodpile placement, did not constitute a substantive "attachment" to the land. If they say they paid workers for the garden's planting and maintenance, McLean/Stevens must prove the work was done by legal workers, not IRS-undeclared /FICA and worker's comp-free cash payments to illegal immigrants.
The courts have widely recognized "something for nothing" schemes and repudiated them.
In the appeal, it will help the Kirlins greatly if a lot of people will picket the Denver courthouse, somebody will issue press releases before the hearing, and get maximum media attention.
The Court of Appeals has the authority to overrule the county judge's opinion that a cheap garden and stacking of firewood constituted a "greater attachment"--actually orders of magnitude less-- than the Kirins' paying of tens of thousands of dollars to originally purchase the property and to subsequently protect it from loss. If the Court reads public sentiment, this will be an additional incentive for it to find for the Kirlins.
Keep in mind that HOA boards do have the legal power to use the CC&Rs to make a homeowner's life just miserable, and the law is definitely on their side.
http://www.dnc.org/a/national/honest_government/
If they are really sincere about “honest government” and “ethics” they should be demanding prosecution for the Democrats who colluded and conspired to steal the land and violate the civil rights of Don and Susie Kirlin. Let’s tell the DNC that they will get no money from the rank and file until they see to it that justice is done here.
Is everything fine? How are you?
So, let's chat! Any news?
------------------
Child Care
U.S. law enforcement officers and other officials like judges, prosecutors, and security guards have been given tremendous power by local, state, and federal government agencies—authority they must have to enforce the law and ensure justice in our country. These powers include the authority to detain and arrest suspects, to search and seize property, to bring criminal charges, to make rulings in court, and to use deadly force in certain situations.
Preventing abuse of this authority, however, is equally necessary to the health of our nation’s democracy. That’s why it’s a federal crime for anyone acting under “color of law” willfully to deprive or conspire to deprive a person of a right protected by the Constitution or U.S. law. “Color of law” simply means that the person is using authority given to him or her by a local, state, or federal government agency.
The FBI is the lead federal agency for investigating color of law abuses, which include acts carried out by government officials operating both within and beyond the limits of their lawful authority. Off-duty conduct may be covered if the perpetrator asserted his or her official status in some way.
;)
by xrtst302a