Posted on 11/14/2007 10:26:59 PM PST by beaversmom
Legal definition of Conspiracy
Conspiracy. A combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the purpose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.
The U.S. Attorney, Troy Eid should have a look at this. Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law applies to Judges and it is a federal offense under Title 18.
Call the U.S. Attorney instead. All four of them should be prosecuted for conspiracy and theft. They are all officers of the Court.
If the State refuses to do anything, maybe the Feds will...and the U.S. Attorney is a Bush appointee and a Republican.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/co/
Does that sound right?
-------------------------------------------
In an early career in LE I ran into more than a couple of working girls. None of them would screw 'anybody' for money, they all drew the line somewhere...making them better than lawyers.
These black-robed facists are going to force normal folks to do some very bad things....
The law on this differs from state to state. In DC, in order to prevail on adverse possession against the titled owner of unimproved land you must either have paid the taxes for 15 years or have enclosed the property for 15 years, in addition to the hostile open continuous notorious stuff.
This mess is still going on. Friend leased part of his land this week. I don’t think the thief wants to have any trouble with his new neighbor. He is big and mean. The thief has been told that his head is going to be knocked off if he is caught on the wrong property. ;0)
The thief’s shyster told my friend that all this could go away if he would sell the property. My friend told the lawyer to tell his client to go to hell.
I think the neighbor has met his match. He has been very quite the last few days.
I spoke to the neighbor and he stopped the practice. If he had continued I would have had my lawyer send a formal notice but it didn't come to that. I did learn the lesson though.
It’s referred as OCEAN - Open, Continuous, Exclusive, Adverse, Notorious. McLean/Stevens did not meet these standards. Judge Klein was too busy fawning over them to make a fair ruling. It was rigged from the get-go.
If nothing else, this should fail on the “exclusive” part. Can they demonstrate that for the statutory period of time, the real owners were prevented from using that part of their own land. They bear the burden of proof, and no I don’t think so.
To me the whole claim sounds very frivolous.
It’s frivolous, but it’s also very expensive. So far the Kirlins have shelled out $120,000 and they will probably spent close to a quarter million on appeal. Mr. Kirlin can kiss his USAirways pilot’s salary goodbye!
That's what adverse possession means. However, it is an uncommon sort of litigation. I do think there's something stinky about the judges.
COLLUSION - An agreement between two or more persons, to defraud a person of his rights by the forms of law.
That is not a fair question. How is the aggrieved party supposed to know they were friends in order to object at all? Run a background check? Most people show up in court expecting the Judge to be, at the very least, fair and impartial. Most people do not know the Judge, and he/she does not know them--that is how it should be.
Judge Klein, if he had any ethics at all, should have recused himself because he personally knew Judge McLean. He didn't.
Felons are not supposed to have firearms. If he claims to have a carry permit and is carrying a gun, he could be lying. That's enough to get the BATF/FBI involved. I'd call them. Illegal possession of a firearm might get this guy locked up where he belongs.
Actually it's a perfectly fair question, because if the presiding judge had ANY kind of personal relationship with a party, he needs to disclose that up front in order to give the parties an opportunity to object. And in the real world, judges know a lot of people. That's how they get elected (or appointed). When I was on the bench it was the rare case when I didn't know one or more of the parties in one capacity or another. Can't be avoided and must be disclosed. And frankly there were any number of judges and former judges I would have been delighted to have had an opportunity to rule against!
That's the problem. Judge Klein apparently did not divulge just how well he knew the Defendants. The whole thing was rigged from the get-go. However, that lack of disclosure would be a good thing to bring up on the appeal and might get the whole ruling overturned. He should have recused himself and now he will have to explain why he did not.
Also Judge Sandstead will have to explain how he made it possible to get the Defendants their restraining order after the Court was closed on a Friday--and in less than 3 hours.
It doesn't look good for either of them.
Plaintiffs, I mean. My bad.
Guess my mind is on the appeal already ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.