Government of, by and for the Privileged

11/25/07 | joanie-f

[Iwo Jima]

O.K., so you can't support your position with any facts, logic, or reasoning. I'm just going to burn in hell because I don't agree with you.

Got it.

[Iwo Jima]

Well, which judge here are you comparing him to?

[tioga]

Get a grip. Trespassing on another’s property does not mean I can take their land for my own. Not where I live. While I have no claim to a legal degree........I have common sense.

[Iwo Jima]

What about this case is indicative of a broken system? How did the system break down here?

[Cvengr]

No, but if you prefer to not associate with righteousness, but instead seek to empower the unrighteous and spend time espousing them, you might just reap what you sow.

[Travis McGee]

Welcome to the USSA, comrade.

You must learn to love Big Sister.

[Iwo Jima]

Trespassing on another’s property does not mean I can take their land for my own. Not where I live.

Yes, it does. Continued trespassing on another's property for the statutory period means that "you can take their land as my own." That is what adverse possession means. And it is why a prudent landowner does not neglect his proprerty for 20 years.

Where do you live? I'll bet you have an adverse possession statute.

[Iwo Jima]

Another sermon. No facts, logic, or reason.

[Cvengr]

I suspect the dual of your question would be easier to answer, which indicates the entire society is becoming more and more corrupt.

[Cvengr]

When the consequences of your system defend unrighteousness and disallow righteousness, what good are they?

[Iwo Jima]

HUH??

[Jeff Head]

This whole episode is Bravo Sierra from my perspective, plain and simple. Certified.

The legal purchasers and owners were keeping this land against the day when older that they could build on it. The theives were using it, tresspassing without permission and are now invoking this law so they can not only take the land for themselves, but keep these people who paid for the land, and who maintained their taxes on it for all those years (which, from the government's perspective should be construed and considered as productive...much more production for that land than what they have not gotten from the other party), from building on it.

These interlopers have not used it productively from a societal standpoint in the least and everyone knows it...they have tresspassed for their own purposes and interests and now a colleague is rewarding that tresspass with ownership, taking abject advantage of good people who were simply naive and unknowledgable about this law...something officers of the court by creed and ethical code are not supposed to do. (As if that mattered a whit these days...shameful)

It is a foul thing, it is an immoral thing, and it has nothing to do whatsoever with the public good or the productive use of land.

The people who bought it and were saving it for their retirement and ultimate home are the ones who have exhibited not only much more responsibility for that land, but have also done so in a wholly legal and upright manner...irespective of their being taken advantage of. To somehow paint their efforts and interest in this land as the "wrong" is simply turning the entire episode and affair completely upside down.

All legaleze aside, this is a plain, simple, straightforward wrong and "taking" as in theft to anyone applying common sense and conventional moral foundation to the episode rather than legaleze which would color outright theft as legal.

I will continue to contact anyone I can to try and help these people and right this wrong.

[Iwo Jima]

We both know that the direction of the country is not good, but this case is not proof of that. This case stands for nothing of any consequence.

If a property owner neglects and does not even set foot on their property for 20 years, and another person uses, improves, and takes care of the property, the owner will lose title.

[cva66snipe]

Get a grip. Trespassing on another’s property does not mean I can take their land for my own. Not where I live. While I have no claim to a legal degree........I have common sense.

Oh but land grabbers don't trespass they merely visit the property. How rude of you to not recognize their right to trespass and steal property as the law allows them to do. /sarcasm Of course the likes of some wouldn't call it trespassing either.

[Iwo Jima]

Jeff, you know that I respect your opinion and what you have done to help protect property rights. But I disagree with your take on this issue. Especially your criticisms of the trial judge.

The judge applied the law. He did not make it. He did not ask to be the factfinder -- the parties required him to do that, including the Kirlins.

I can find no fault in the trial judge is his application of the law or his findings of fact based on the evidence at trial.

[Travis McGee]

How did the black-robed thieves “improve or take care of” the land they stole? The land paid for (and taxes paid on) by an American citizen?

Other than by cutting through it, AKA “tresspassing?”

This stinks to hell, and if you are on the side of the black-robed thieves, you are on the other side from me.

[Jeff Head]

See my post 192 (and others). People like this former judge and his wife, and his colleague who ruled in their favor, are apparently willing to take what is not theirs for frivoulous reasons and award it to someone else for their self interest.

It is immorala, it is a travesty, and should not be allowed to stand...and by God, I will do all I can to help reverse it.

Productive use of the land is not the issue here. An immoral action of taking what someone else paid for and has maintained for twenty years simply because they can do so for their own self interests is the issue here.

I pray that there are enough Americans with a sense of propriety, honor, justice, and right flowing in their viens to hear about this (and it will be up to us to get the word out) and be as outraged about it as I am...irrespective of the color of law and legaleze that these other people are willing to stand on in the act of this theft.

[Cvengr]

From the article reagrding the Kirlins, the owners of the property: “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.”

Your implication that the owners neglected and didn’t even set foot on their property for 20 years doesn’t match the implication of the article.

Why do you seek to defend those who are unjust?

[Iwo Jima]

If it gets posted again, read the findings of fact.

The Mcleans built paths, cut the grass, built a rock wall, trimmed trees, landscaped the property and generally used the property in question as any owner of the property would. They openly treated the property as their own without any action of the property owners for 20 years. Under the law, the land is now theirs.

Sorry if we disagree on this, but it is really a pretty routine legal matter, and one easily avoided by a prudent property owner.

[Iwo Jima]

they walk by the land regularly

There, right there, in their own words. They never even said that they set foot on their property for 20 years. If they had, they would have seen how it was being used. But whether they saw it or not, they were required to take action to stop the use of their property and they did not. According to the law, they lost title.