Government of, by and for the Privileged

11/25/07 | joanie-f

[joanie-f]

Don and Susie Kirlin of Boulder, Colordao.

How many times have we heard about government abuses of the right to own property going on in neighborhoods across America, in the form of the invoking of the right of ‘eminent domain’, and the corruption of other legal concepts? Kelo vs. New London is probably the most publicized of such unconstitutional atrocities, but similar atrocities occur daily across this country.

How many of us have attempted to help the victims of such abuses of power? I myself have done so no more than once or twice.

I ask any FReeper who happens upon this thread to take ten minutes of his or her day to read about one such abuse of power. In terms of land area, it is a small abuse, and it affects only two ordinary American citizens who wield no more power than you or I. But its ramifications are enormous. If we’re not going to decide to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the two relatively anonymous Americans I’d like to introduce to you, exactly when will we decide that it’s time to unite in revolt against the growing ‘privileged elite’ in this country, and the menace they represent to us all? The so-called legal/justice system is using all manner of wicked precedent to commit major, obscene private land grabs ... all such crimes tracing back to a desire for more wealth and power on the part of those who already wield more than you or I.

Before inserting the precious words ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ into the Declaration, our Founders seriously considered using the wording ‘life, liberty and property’ (as originated by John Locke). I believe the latter to be a more powerful representation of our inalienable rights, but apparently the modern American government/judicial system vehemently disagrees with either expression.

Don and Susie Kirlin own a vacant lot, worth roughly a million dollars in today’s market, on the outskirts of Boulder, Colorado. They purchased it about twenty years ago with the idea of eventually building a home there. It is located just down the road from their current home, they walk by the land regularly, and they have been paying taxes on it faithfully for the past two decades.

Unfortunately for the Kirlins the couple that owns a home adjacent to their lot consists of a county judge, Richard McLean, and his wife, Edith Stevens, who is also an attorney. McLean and Stevens have been active, and powerful, in Boulder County politics for decades. It seems that this ambitious couple has been using a portion of the Kirlins’ land to occasionally hold their own private parties, and, in doing so, they have also created worn pathways through portions of that land.

It also would appear that these two believe that, if the Kirlins build a home on the land they purchased for just that reason, the view of the surrounding landscape from their own home would be diminished.

When the Kirlins attempted to build a fence on a portion of their vacant land before beginning construction on it, McLean and Stevens had a restraining order issued against them, stating that, since they had been using the land themselves for some time, they had become ‘attached’ to it and they are claiming it as their own. The restraining order was issued within a few hours of their request for it. Apparently the wheels of justice move at lighting speed, if the person requesting the moving has the right connections.

As a result, McLean and Stevens have invoked the doctrine of ‘adverse possession’, which allows a citizen to claim another’s property simply by virtue of using it for a specified period of time, in order to declare one third of the Kirlins’ land as their own. A Boulder judge has ordered the Kirlins to hand over to McLean and Stevens one-third of their land, which will result in their no longer owning sufficient land on which to construct not only their dream home but any home at all.

As if the preceding weren’t evidence in itself of unmitigated chutzpah, McLean and Stevens are not only claiming to ‘own’ a large portion of the land in question (without ever having paid a penny for it, or any of the taxes incumbent in its ownership), but they are also asking the court to rule that the Kirlins must pay any legal fees that they incur in order to achieve this particular theft.

Thus, as is becoming increasingly common in Amerika 2007, two people in power have decided to use a corrupt system to steal from someone else of lesser political stature -- in this case, out in the open, and without conscience or remorse.

Needless to say, the Kirlins are appealing the ruling (and amassing large, and no doubt growing, legal fees in the process). But I wouldn’t be taking any bets on their success. ‘Fighting city hall’ is fast becoming an empty phrase anymore, because the concepts of government of, by and for the people -- originally made possible by public servants who value individual rights more than government power -- is fast heading for extinction, as corruption, greed, and lust for power achieve a momentum that has become virtually relentless and unstoppable. Not to mention the fact that both the eighth (re: coveting) and tenth (re: stealing) of the Ten Commandments have essentially been declared null and void.

This case vividly portrays the battle between the average American citizen and our modern American 'ruling elite'. Yet too many Americans are more interested in the comfort of our couches, and the proximity of our remote controls, than we are in the plight of the likes of the Kirlins -- victims of a system gone awry.

Unless we Americans start giving a damn about the abuses that our neighbors suffer under tyrannical government dictates, those abuses will someday affect us, and there will be nobody left who can turn the tragedy around.

The only difference between appeasement and surrender is the passage of time.

Contact Information for Boulder, Colorado officials (and thanks, in advance, to all who avail themselves of this source of redress):

Cindy Domenico, Boulder County Commissioner

Ben Pearlman, Boulder County Commissioner

Will Toor, Boulder County Commissioner

Joan Fitzgerald, Colorado State Senator, District 16

Brandon Shaffer, Colorado State Senator, District 17

Ron Tupa, Colorado State Senator, District 18

Alice Madden, Colorado State Representative, District 10

Jack Pommer, Colorado State Representative, District 11

Paul Weissmann, Colorado State Representative, District 12

Claire Levy, Colorado State Representative, District 13

Dianne Primavera, Colorado State Representative, District 33

Resources:

Legal Landgrab Should Be Overturned on Appeal

Kirlin’s Lost Land

Boulder Couple Accuses Former Judge, Mayor of Land Grab

Hard Feelings on Hardscrabble Drive

~ joanie
Allegiance and Duty Betrayed

[Teacher317]

As a result, McLean and Stevens have invoked the doctrine of ‘adverse possession’,

It sucks when you're on the losing side, but adverse possession claims are not the exclusive domain of the privileged class.

[Publius Valerius]

They were never intended or meant to allow people to simply take the legal property of others under the guise and color of law.

That was exactly the purpose of it. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a scare resource--land--is actually used for a beneficial purpose. Here, the owners sat on their thumbs for twenty years while someone else used the land. Guess they shouldn't have waited twenty years to build.

[Iwo Jima]

If the Kirlins had put a fraction of the effort they are exerting now into stopping the adverse possession for over 20 years, they wouldn’t be in this fix. Now it is much ado about nothing.

[Minuteman23]

All of you who have been talking about the Kirlins sitting on their thumbs for 20 years, did you read Joanie's reply #115 (apparently backed up by many of their neighbors--a fact that spunkets doesn't include in his excerpts from court proceedings, and he says that he only cited relevant portions)??????????

They apparently DID NOT sit on their thumbs for 20 years, and claims that they did are bogus.

[wtc911]

In that case vagrants should own many inner city buildings then right?

___________________________________________

Happens all the time to squatters who know what they're doing.

Likewise if a landlord allows a tenant to reside in his property for ninety days without a lease agreement then the 'tenant' has the legal right to stay until legally evicted which can take years.

If your grown kid moves out, gets an apartment, takes a friend in as a room-mate then six months later wants to get rid of the room-mate he can't if the roomie won't go. Nor can the landlord tell the roomie to leave at the end of the lease.

Every lease I write has specific clauses that define clearly the allowable tenants by name and prohibits 'visitors' from staying for more than ten days without my written approval.

The world works the way it works, not they way we might want it to.

[Iwo Jima]

The issue is not what some poster puts on a website, the issue is, what was the evidence at trial? I read the FOF/COL. It seems pretty solid for the plaintiffs. What have you read?

I have never seen the Kirlins claim that they ever set foot of the property for 20 years. And they certainly did not bring suit to stop the unauthorized use of their property. THAT is sitting on their thumbs.

[Publius Valerius]

They apparently DID NOT sit on their thumbs for 20 years, and claims that they did are bogus.

If they filed an ejectment or quiet title action against the judge, then I'll change my tune. Otherwise, given that the judge won his quiet title action, it seems to me that they sat on their thumbs.

[brityank]

Thus, as is becoming increasingly common in Amerika 2007, ... people in power have decided to use a corrupt system to steal from someone else of lesser political stature -- in this case, out in the open, and without conscience or remorse.

Thank you for this essay, Joanie, I see it as one more brick in the road to revolution.

In truth, my own feeling is that the US has been on that road since the Supreme Court ruled that Corporations have the same Rights as A Man before the Bar of Justice. That single ruling, and the judicial policy of stare decisis has allowed for the socialist undermining of our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Corporations, of necessity, are socialist in construct; they have a dictatorial hierarchy without which they could not function. Unfortunately by their standing the corporations are usurping the laws that granted them Powers, not Rights, as We, the People, granted Powers to our Governments.

Kelo was a wake-up call to the Joe and Jill Sixpack Nation, but because of the bread-and-circus lifestyle made obsequious by life's necessities, was one of very few rulings that showed the power that those we have granted Powers to have amassed to our detriment. Our Citizenship has been steadily undermined with lesser rulings, many counter to the true meaning and clear proscriptions of the Constitution, that we no longer live in the land that our Forefathers bequeathed us. I believe it was Ben Franklin who remarked: "A Republic, if you can keep it."

It appears that we no longer have the means or will to regain our true Republic, and I fear for the coming storm that will drive our children back into serfdom.

[joanie-f]

Apologies for the non-response to many of the thoughtful posts here since late last night. Will be back this afternoon to try to respond to a few of them.

[Iwo Jima]

Your good sentiments are misplaced on this factual situation. There is no corruption or usurpation of power here — just a routine and apparently very well founded adverse possession case.

[tioga]

This judge deserves the same fate as the judge who sued the dry cleaners over his lost pants.

[Cvengr]

Ownership and the rights pertaining to them also have liabilities levied by local, state, and federal laws and regulations. If the neighbors claim adverse possession, they also had a responsibility to abide by those same laws and regulations regarding the land they possessed.

The laws of adverse possession are not laws intended to give criminals an opportunity to steal property from their neighbors when the property rights were not being enforced. They are intended to address real situation where two parties and real property is involved, where the proper owner of the property fails to make any use of that property and another is able to make use of the property but not yet formally recognized as the owner.

An honest and honorable man seeking ownership by adverse possession would also have made numerous attempts to treat the property as his own and lived up to those civic responsibilities. He also would have attempted to purchase the land fairly from the proper owners.

I suspect the judge and lawyer couple are guilty of fraud, but not enough information is provided in the article.

If the owner’s historical payment of taxes doesn’t reflect their responsible ownership, then the pathway adjacent the owner’s house has even less value to a righteous judge.

[cva66snipe]

That was exactly the purpose of it. The purpose of the law is to ensure that a scare resource--land--is actually used for a beneficial purpose. Here, the owners sat on their thumbs for twenty years while someone else used the land. Guess they shouldn't have waited twenty years to build.

Oh Good Grief. My parents are middle class and they owned their land for over 20 years they currently live on before building a home. Yea people used the land. They used it to walk the creek bank and fish and some hunted on it as well. Finally their monetary situation allowed them to build a home now worth about $200,000 or $30,000 back in 1968.

Who are you to tell anyone how soon they should build? The land I live on was owned and untouched for ten years before I finally got the funds to build on. Lucky for me it's land that no scumbag would likely take as it is a steep ridge side. But then again there is greedy trash among us these days who would love to grab anyone elses property they didn't pay for by any means possible. Such trash as that usually preys on the elderly as well. They call themselves caretakers of the land wink wink.

[17th Miss Regt]

If this ends up with the judge and his wife in possession of the land and then it was found that a nasty radioactive spill that cost millions to clean up had occurred on the land they took, would they have to fork over the money themselves to clean it up or would they try to sue the previous owners for non-disclosure of the condition? Just asking... (I think I know what these two lowlifes would do.)

[ForGod'sSake]

JMO, but we have become much too civil-ized. Some frontier justice might go a long way in righting many of the wrongs our servants have visited upon us.

The "system" is broken and it can't get up.

[Cvengr]

A litany of things. If you lack the intuition to comprehend such basics and are so violently willed as to deny the rights of others, no amount of listing them will even spark a glimmer of righteousness in your thinking.

Since you indicate a knowledge of the issue, perhaps you could list yourself what the judge (both of them) have done wrong.

I suspect though, that you have scarred your thinking to the point that even if you wanted to list them, you would lack the discipline to conceive them.

Not to worry though, until you suffer the first death, it is still possible for you to find righteousness, simply by placing a smidgeon more faith than absolutely no faith whatsover in what God provides through faith in Christ.

[Iwo Jima]

By “judge,” do you mean the judge who tried the case, or the former judge who was one of the plaintiffs? If the former, what did the the trial judge do that was wrong?

[Publius Valerius]

Who are you to tell anyone how soon they should build?

They had other options. As I've pointed out repeatedly, they could have filed an ejectment action. They didn't. It really doesn't seem like they did anything. They just sat there while the judge used it.

Let this be a lesson to those folks that don't tend to their property.

[Iwo Jima]

The judge doesn't make the law, he just applies it. And the law of adverse possession does not require that the claimant pay property taxes.

Do you want judges who apply the law or just make it up as they go along?

[tioga]

I meant the judge who lost his pants.......it was a frivolous law suit.