Government of, by and for the Privileged

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):

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.

Here is where I think it becomes clear why you see this so differently than most of the rest of us. You are a lawyer. Even if "adverse possession" law is not your realm of specialty, you certainly are aware of it, have studied it in law school, and must know of the dangers it poses to unsuspecting homeowners.

And I think this makes you blind to what the rest of us are seeing, namely that the Kirlins, who can't be reasonably expected to know anything more about arcane 15th century laws than any of us other non-lawyers do, seem to the rest of us to be 100% conscientious property owners who did everything the city told them (weeds), everything the HOA told them (fence maintenance), everything the county told them (pay property taxes), and so on. And as their reward, they've been screwed out of their property by a lawyer couple who DO know all about 15th century laws that can be used to grab their land.

It would have been nice if you'd said something like, "This is cetainly a tragedy that's happened to these unsuspecting, conscientious, law-abiding citizens, who weren't aware of this ancient law and its consequences for them. On the positive side, this tragedy can be used educate other homeowners of this mostly invisible snake in the grass law before it bites them fatally."

But no, instead you come across (reading heavily between the lines) as: "What? They didn't know about adverse possession law? Why, doesn't everyone have a law degree like me? Well, this non-lawyer couple sure got what's coming to them! It's their fault they didn't know 15th century property laws like their smart lawyer neighbors did. Serves 'em right!"

And don't come back to me with the old "Ignorance of the law is no excuse". I have a few more things to say along this line. See next post....

I just googled Edith Stevens and Richard McLean and pulled up link after link.

They'll have a rough time getting rid of a bad Google. It reminds me of an obscure song from the 50's called The Thing. If McLean and Stevens are not careful, they could end up like this poor man:

The Thing

by Phil Harris

While I was walking down the beach one bright and sunny day
I saw a great big wooden box a-floatin' in the bay
I pulled it in and opened it up and much to my surprise
Ooh, I discovered a boom-boom-boom, right before my eyes

Oh, I discovered a boom-boom-boom, right before my eyes

I picked it up and ran to town as happy as a king
I took it to a guy I knew who'd buy most any thing
But this is what he hollered at me as I walked in his shop
Oh, get outta here with that boom-boom-boom, before I call a cop

Oh, get outta here with that boom-boom-boom before I call a cop

I turned around and got right out, a-runnin' for my life
And than I took it home with me to give it to my wife
But this is what she hollered at me as I walked in the door
Oh, get outta here with that boom-boom-boom, and don't come back no more

Oh, get outta here with that boom-boom-boom, and don't come back no more

I wandered all around the town until I chanced to meet
A hobo who was looking for a hand-out on the street
He said he'd take most any old thing, he was a desperate man
But when I showed him the boom-boom-boom, he turned around and ran
Oh, when I showed him the boom-boom-boom, he turned around and ran

I wandered on for many years, a victim of my fate
Until one day I came upon St. Peter at the gate
And when I tried to take it inside, he told me where to go
Get outta here with that boom-boom-boom and take it down below

Oh, get outta here with that boom-boom-boom and take it down below

The moral of this story is if you're out on the beach
And you should see a great big box and it's within your reach
Don't ever stop and open it up, that's my advice to you
'Cause you'll never get rid of the boom-boom-boom, no matter what you do

Oh, you'll never get rid of the boom-boom-boom, no matter what you do

(boom-boom-boom = 3 drumbeat sounds)

A few illuminating quotes regarding the use of the law, mostly taken from landgrabber.org or pages it points to.....

[Denver business and commercial law attorney Andrew M.] Toft said he sees the law used more frequently in rural areas, where boundary disputes span dozens or even hundreds of acres. However, he warned that some property owners can be caught off-guard by the particulars of the law. Suddenly, it can become an issue," Toft said. "I don't think it's something that your average layperson is going to have a lot of experience with."

The judge in the case wrote in his final order that the adverse-possession doctrine has existed since at least the 16th century.

As others have said, just because it was Legal doesn't mean it was Ethical. Therefore the Kirlins -- or ANY interested parties -- can and perhaps should file a Grievance with the Colorado Supreme Court Disciplinary Committee regarding Dick McLean's unethical behavior. There have been 100s of attorneys suspended or disbarred for unethical acts which themselves were perfectly legal.

The Colorado Bar even denied one lawyer membership for simply "using" the law to expose and stop a corrupt evangelical preacher. The gist of the ruling was that since he knew the law so well, using every bit of it to attack a lay person for purely personal reasons, even though legal, was unconscionable and unethical.

Colorado Supreme Court Office of Attorney Regulation(303) 866-6410 or 1 (877) 888-1370. You can read up on the Rules of Professional Conduct and actual disciplinary actions and the reasons therefore, at http://www.cobar.org/ors.cfm?ID=20041

Any act which tends to place the Profession in a bad public light is a violation, whether legal or not.

Deliberately exploiting the arcane Adverse Possession law to one's personal advantage against a known neighbor in a modern residential development is, at a minimum, abusive.

"... ours is a sick profession marked by incompetence, lack of training, misconduct and bad manners. Ineptness, bungling, malpractice and bad ethics can be observed in court houses all over this country every day ... these incompetents have a seeming unawareness of the fundamental ethics of the profession." -- Chief Justice Warren Burger

1. Here is another example of a law that is being twisted beyond the intent (the Espinoza campaign-contribution issue of late comes to mind).

2. The unfortunate lack of personal integrity and concern for others that exists in our current civil climate that would condone this exercise is disheartening.

3. The use of obscure legal knowledge by an ex-judge to take advantage of a neighbor is disappointing and further increases the lack of trust in our government and its officials.

This issue is a classic example of how difficult it can be as a parent to teach your children honesty and integrity when they see both flouted by persons who should know better. While I would agree this is not simply a Boulder problem, I would also agree that one needs to question what kind of person would do this to a neighbor.

They somehow convinced Judge James C. Klein that Don and Suzie Kirlin had abandoned their property. Last year the Kirlins paid more than $20,000 in property tax on a property the county values at $950,000. The area is beautiful and since the lots are small, the temptation to expand is understandable. I hope the Camera does a follow-up story to help inform readers how they can protect themselves from rapacious neighbors. Perhaps the two judges could get together and do a "how to" article for the real-estate section or an infomercial for late-night TV; "how to increase your lot size without having to spend a dime."

This law should be stricken from the books, this is not the wild west frontier anymore. This law should never have applied to city lots in the first place. SHAME ON THAT EX JUDGE, no morals at all.

Yep if you enter 2059 Hardscrabble Dr 80305 into Google Earth it's pretty obvious it's just some rich folks trying to protect their view.

McLean: "I don't want this case tried in the media."
How about the Court of Public Opinion, then? "The Court find you and your Jezebel guilty of being scumbags. Of this decision, there is no appeal.
This session is adjourned."

Perhaps I am most disappointed in Judge Klein. He ignored not only the intent of the law, but also important facts in his decision allowing the former judge to complete his unjust land grab. I am the Kirlin's neighbor and thought this case was a no brainier. If the intent of the law is to put the land to the best use during the supposed adverse-possession period, what better use of the land than preserving open space!! I knew the land belonged to the Kirlins--Susie told me three years ago. I was shocked and disappointed when I saw the fence go up because it detracts from the beauty of the property. The public should know that our homeowners association walks the entire neighborhood on a regular basis and there was no obvious encroachment until after the dispute arose.

I see the Kirlins walk the trails virtually every day, which go right by the property. Obviously, the Kirlins regularly visited their property, which is just down the street from their home. Who wouldn't? I also walk by the property all the time and I never observed any evidence that the property was being used until I saw the fence, let alone any "open and notorious" use adverse to that of the Kirlins. Moreover, everyone on the HOA board knew the Kirlins owned the land and were paying their HOA dues every month for more than two decades on the property--how then could adverse possession have been open and notorious?

McLean and Stevens never paid dues on this land. Is everyone on our HOA board a bunch of blind idiots? The real injustice (besides the whole land thing) is the cost, pain, and suffering of this ridiculous lawsuit. I bet the Kirlins (who are very nice people) would be more than happy to donate the cost of the appeal to the Nature Conservancy if McLean/Stevens dropped the whole matter. In fact, the Kirlins previously offered to accommodate the former judge's "needs" but the former judge rejected those reasonable accommodations. Oh, and by the way, most of the lots in our HOA are small by design.

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.